Luke Garbutt

[davek]

Well I have been called many things in my time, but I can categorically say I am not an orthodox economist!

You are right to compare and contrast this as on the one hand a battle between individualist self-interest and on the other hand communitarianism.

I have little to argue or debate with you when it comes to Garbutt he is acting in his own self interest. I suppose where my disagreement comes is it presents a very rose tinted view of Everton.

We knew the sort of person we were getting when we signed him on a technicality. A Player who would essentially screw over the club who had brought him up to further his career. We profited from that. There wasn't much sense of community there, it was pure market sentiment. We got what we wanted at a knockdown price.

If you then look at our intentions more closely. It's clear Garbutt wants to play more football and first team football. BY 21 this is a reasonable request (not born out of market sentiment). So he will look to leave. If he signs a contract we get more money for him.
I suspect most who are up in arms on here are not annoyed he will be leaving (we already have Oviedo and Baines ahead of him and are well covered there) but annoyed we won't get more money for him. That is fair enough, but don't dress it up that it's about a sense of community, when it is about us getting more money for the player, which is the exact thing we accuse Garbutt of.

I regret football is as it is. It's a game for mercenaries and that sense of community is now a weakness, which is an awful shame. But Everton perpetuate this. It's like the Sterling situation, they poached him from QPR. Something sits uneasy with me when clubs do that.
They are now reaping what they sowe with him, a player who is screwing them over just as Garbutt is with us. But when you sign the sort of player who'd leave their own academy as a teenager for a knockdown fee, I suppose that's what you expect.

If you go on RAWK now, there are hoards of them whinging about the 20% fee they have to pay to QPR. It is embarrassing. I think us complaining because we might lose a bit of money, or equating it to a broader philosophical question is also not really true.

I dont accept it's a rosy view of Everton. Sometime in the future the boot will be on the other foot and Everton will gain from a situation like this, I know it. But we may as well start blaming dogs for barking and biting as lay the blame on clubs for behaving in a way that minimizes their spending on players. My criticism isn't at club level. I criticised the situation with Naismith when he left his old club without compensation, so there's no flag of convenience been flown here. It might well be a case of the biter bitten, but my point here has been consistently to place the responsibility on the player to act responsibly in the situation where some others are saying he is already doing that by looking to feather his own nest. As said, I reject that point of view completely, even with the knowledge that club's can profit and lose in equal measure by encouraging that aggressive individualism. There can be no understanding of Garbutt's situation from our point of view because he's made rapid progress as a player and stands on the verge of a career at Everton and it's one that he knows he'll get if patience is applied. It's almost impossible to look on at that from the standpoint of a fan and see his side of the case, because there is none. It's a wilful running down of a contract in order to exploit his own financial value. There's no case to be made for him doing this because he wants more game time. Game time has been given, and if he signs a new deal much more game time will follow.

This isn't me tilting at windmills; I understand the realities of the game. But what I'm emphasising is that regardless of how this plays out there is no credibility in arguing Garbutt's case for him, and that's regardless of attaching it to the behaviour of employers. We as fans who emphasise our community are on the other side of a fence to that of a player (any player) who seeks to walk out and exercise his market power for his own ends. It's abundantly clear to me that this is the only possible outlook to have on the matter.

 

[catcherintherye]

I dont accept it's a rosy view of Everton. Sometime in the future the boot will be on the other foot and Everton will gain from a situation like this, I know it. But we may as well start blaming dogs for barking and biting as lay the blame on clubs for behaving in a way that minimizes their spending on players. My criticism isn't at club level. I criticised the situation with Naismith when he left his old club without compensation, so there's no flag of convenience been flown here. It might well be a case of the biter bitten, but my point here has been consistently to place the responsibility on the player to act responsibly in the situation where some others are saying he is already doing that by looking to feather his own nest. As said, I reject that point of view completely, even with the knowledge that club's can profit and lose in equal measure by encouraging that aggressive individualism. There can be no understanding of Garbutt's situation from our point of view because he's made rapid progress as a player and stands on the verge of a career at Everton and it's one that he knows he'll get if patience is applied. It's almost impossible to look on at that from the standpoint of a fan and see his side of the case, because there is none. It's a wilful running down of a contract in order to exploit his own financial value. There's no case to be made for him doing this because he wants more game time. Game time has been given, and if he signs a new deal much more game time will follow.

This isn't me tilting at windmills; I understand the realities of the game. But what I'm emphasising is that regardless of how this plays out there is no credibility in arguing Garbutt's case for him, and that's regardless of attaching it to the behaviour of employers. We as fans who emphasise our community are on the other side of a fence to that of a player (any player) who seeks to walk out and exercise his market power for his own ends. It's abundantly clear to me that this is the only possible outlook to have on the matter.

I don't think I or others are trying to argue Garbutts case for him. Or defend him. Of course you are right, in the perfect world he should sign a contract and leave allowing us to dictate how much money we get for him.

I think the key difference is, you see him wanting to leave for money, while I see it as someone who wants to be a first team regular.

He has played some games this season, but when others have been injured. He is behind Baines and Oviedo. I think at 21 he will probably feel that he wants to be a first choice. He hasn't shown he's good enough at Everton for that so he will move elsewhere for it.

Him winding his contract down costs us some money in the process. It's a snide thing to do. But it is completely understandable.

I agree wholeheartedly on your point about community. I just don't feel let down by Garbutt. To me it's our third choice left back leaving to get first team football somewhere else. I can't begrudge him that.

 

[davek]

I don't think I or others are trying to argue Garbutts case for him. Or defend him. Of course you are right, in the perfect world he should sign a contract and leave allowing us to dictate how much money we get for him.

I think the key difference is, you see him wanting to leave for money, while I see it as someone who wants to be a first team regular.

He has played some games this season, but when others have been injured. He is behind Baines and Oviedo. I think at 21 he will probably feel that he wants to be a first choice. He hasn't shown he's good enough at Everton for that so he will move elsewhere for it.

Him winding his contract down costs us some money in the process. It's a snide thing to do. But it is completely understandable.

I agree wholeheartedly on your point about community. I just don't feel let down by Garbutt. To me it's our third choice left back leaving to get first team football somewhere else. I can't begrudge him that.

The feeling toward Garbutt has to veer between acceptance and disdain at what he's actually doing here. Where I came into this debate was to simply state that it's odd to say we should 'understand' his position. His position is wholly insupportable from our perspective and cant be understood as anything other than a player making a dash for the door which inconveniences us as a club.

On the game time: if he committed to a contract he's been given enough proof already that he'll be used. In the comments from the manager it's been underlined that Baines is first choice, all that means is he'd have to fight for his place. At what club wouldn't it be the case that he'd have to fight for a place? He's not a top player. He couldn't just walk in anywhere and lay claim to a PL starting place, and that goes for all PL clubs, never mind clubs that could be compared as the equal or superior of Everton. There has to be thoughts of a signing on fee here and a wage deal that goes beyond what he's valued at presently at Goodison. The 'game time' argument is strictly for the birds.

 

[Moomin]

If he is prepared to stab his boyhood club in the back, don't be shocked to see him sign for them lot next month. Announcement next week apparently.

 

[Sapie88]

If he is prepared to stab his boyhood club in the back, don't be shocked to see him sign for them lot next month. Announcement next week apparently.

If he does that I hope he loses a toe.

 

[Pienaar'sdisciple]

Its scandalous how little game time he's had, he's got no reason to sign a new contract .

 

[Prevenger17]

Its scandalous how little game time he's had, he's got no reason to sign a new contract .

He's a whining, emo GRASS who got too much game time. He'll be taking nicely lofted corners for Stevenage in about two years time.

 

[Joey66]

He's a whining, emo GRASS who got too much game time. He'll be taking nicely lofted corners for Stevenage in about two years time.

I doubt it he looks the part, and has the build already we paid a million for him as a Leeds youth player so lets not forget why we did that!

 

[Prevenger17]

I doubt it he looks the part, and has the build already we paid a million for him as a Leeds youth player so lets not forget why we did that!

Because he was young, had floppy hair and our scout got a stiffy.

 

[Joey66]

Because he was young, had floppy hair and our scout got a stiffy.

Ha Ha very unfunny! sarcasm is the lowest form of wit - we actually got him for nothing untill Ken bates of then Leeds kicked up so yes he must have been tosh for us to pay 1 million for a youth player !
like we have done for Galloway?

 

[orchard]

Its scandalous how little game time he's had, he's got no reason to sign a new contract .

Agreed, from the little we know - should have been managed better especially considering the state of our team this season.

 

[Prevenger17]

Agreed, from the little we know - should have been managed better especially considering the state of our team this season.

He had Leighton Baines ahead of him. Fourth in the assists table with 9 and 2 goals to his name. In what world would Garbutt displace him considering the position we were in?

 

[Moomin]

If he does that I hope he loses a toe.

I won't be happy when he whips in a corner next season against us for Mirallas to head in.

Sexy Kev as a replacement for Sterling is what I got told, they have spoken with his agent and offered the 100k that was on the table for sterling. Reckon they can do a deal for 8 million once Kev forces a move.

 

[Moomin]

He had Leighton Baines ahead of him. Fourth in the assists table with 9 and 2 goals to his name. In what world would Garbutt displace him considering the position we were in?

Angel De Maria is second in the assist table.

Just saying

 

[Prevenger17]

Angel De Maria is second in the assist table.

Just saying

You mean the 60 million euro midfielder?