Luke Garbutt

Try to keep him, or let him leave ?


  • Total voters
    308
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

That's exactly the type of market logic I'm talking about. 'Maximize your market value'.

Football isn't a butchers or supermarket though. It's a cultural organisation where playing for the community and subsuming yourself in it are prized. It's why we revere more any player who stays at the one club, and why we call (in an affectionate, non-serf like way) some players servants: because they put club before career (and it doesn't have to be local players to do that either).

Seems we're losing that type of outlook if the Garbutt reaction is anything to go by. Whatever is instrumental to his career is seen to be right and proper and any argument against that is viewed as holding the individual in question back.

Like it or loathe it, football is very much a market capitalised industry. The clubs with the greatest wealth and on pitch success are, or become, sustainable because of their exploitation of the casual fan, the fan who watches games exclusively on the TV or the internet, who comes from a different city, country or even continent. Clubs contract players from all over the world and the football we watch is better for it. These are not the days when there is a scouse majority in the first team squad (or even an english majority), so we can't expect a community association from the players who came here to satisfy ambitions in the first place. If we extend your argument logically no one should ever leave any club ever because of their own priorities. The club, however, buoyed by the overreactions of sections of the support, should feel free to sack off any player at any time, just look at some of the comments regarding Ossie on this forum.

In summary, I think we need to decide what we want football to be. A community club populated by local lads with loyalty that cuts both ways, which inevitably would result in a lower standard of football, or a dispassionate industry focused on success, that I agree has sacrificed elements of it's soul, with limited loyalty but a high standard of sport. We currently have the latter, even if many of us would like it to be the former. Pretending that a premier league football club is more like a community co-operative than a Tesco or a Cineworld is not a conclusion that you can objectively support any more.
 
Like it or loathe it, football is very much a market capitalised industry. The clubs with the greatest wealth and on pitch success are, or become, sustainable because of their exploitation of the casual fan, the fan who watches games exclusively on the TV or the internet, who comes from a different city, country or even continent. Clubs contract players from all over the world and the football we watch is better for it. These are not the days when there is a scouse majority in the first team squad (or even an english majority), so we can't expect a community association from the players who came here to satisfy ambitions in the first place. If we extend your argument logically no one should ever leave any club ever because of their own priorities. The club, however, buoyed by the overreactions of sections of the support, should feel free to sack off any player at any time, just look at some of the comments regarding Ossie on this forum.

In summary, I think we need to decide what we want football to be. A community club populated by local lads with loyalty that cuts both ways, which inevitably would result in a lower standard of football, or a dispassionate industry focused on success, that I agree has sacrificed elements of it's soul, with limited loyalty but a high standard of sport. We currently have the latter, even if many of us would like it to be the former. Pretending that a premier league football club is more like a community co-operative than a Tesco or a Cineworld is not a conclusion that you can objectively support any more.
You're viewing it as either/or. But football, to one degree or another, has always been about balancing out commercial success/competency with cultural/community identity. It always will be too, because what's being exploited by the business end of football is captive - a captive audience, but one they cant stray too far away from in terms of doing what's right in the eyes of that audience.

And that goes for individual players too. Although most accept the commercial realities of their club and its dealings with players who are in a position of negotiating strength, those players cant just do as they wish. There's a price to pay if its deemed that a player has overstepped the bounds of decency, as Sterling is finding out right now. And that's how it should be too. In Garbutt's case its not as acute because he's stayed the full term of his contract. Nevertheless, it's still turning his back on us and should be approached in that way. No 'understanding' can be offered IMO, just a natural recoiling away from such a decision. As said above, anything less than that reaction is just to view matters as a dispassionate, onlooking bean counter rather than a fan of a club. A player doesn't want to play for this club after following a two year plan to get him into the first team had been agreed and executed by the manager, and who is now offered a good long term deal for the future? Fine. He goes. But that cant be accepted with a 'good luck to him...it's understandable', not for me. It's very far from being ok or understandable and easily accepted.
 
Not sure the amount but I did read that the club and player had agreed terms....he just hasn't signed for some reason. To go to the effort to meet the club, agree terms and not have any intention of signing would be just weird.
I think he will stay.
It does strike me as odd that he's apparently agreed terms but not signed.
 

It's a tough situation because he has one of the best left backs in the world in front of him, and if Baines stays fit and in form, then Garbutt doesn't play, and that's how it should be. In the few games he has played he's shown a lot of promise and I would love him to stay because we need to be looking to our youngsters as the future of the club.

It is very hard for young players to get into the team. Stones got his chance because of injuries to the old players in front of him, (Alcaraz and Distin), and his form kept him in the team, (thank God!). Coleman had Hibbert ahead of him and was able to keep his place when Hibbert came back from injury.

The only way Garbutt gets significant game time is if we sell Baines or he gets injured. I can't see Baines losing enough form for Garbutt to challenge for 3-5 years yet.

Having said that, he should also look at clubs like Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal who have millions of pounds of International talent that get very little game time, and he shouldn't assume any god given right to a first team place.

It's the Premier league!

Just my opinion.
 
It's a tough situation because he has one of the best left backs in the world in front of him, and if Baines stays fit and in form, then Garbutt doesn't play, and that's how it should be. In the few games he has played he's shown a lot of promise and I would love him to stay because we need to be looking to our youngsters as the future of the club.
It is very hard for young players to get into the team. Stones got his chance because of injuries to the old players in front of him, (Alcaraz and Distin), and his form kept him in the team, (thank God!). Coleman had Hibbert ahead of him and was able to keep his place when Hibbert came back from injury. The only way Garbutt gets significant game time is if we sell Baines or he gets injured. I can't see Baines losing enough form for Garbutt to challenge for 3-5 years yet.

Having said that, he should also look at clubs like Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal who have millions of pounds of International talent that get very little game time, and he shouldn't assume any god given right to a first team place.

It's the Premier league!

Just my opinion.
I think Baines has been well off his best for ages, tbh. I can see a fairly rapid transition between him being eased out for his successor. But if that potential successor isn't prepared to wait and has more lucrative offers elsewhere....
 
It does strike me as odd that he's apparently agreed terms but not signed.
The only thing I can assume from that is he is seeking some assurances on playing time. You wouldn't think that would be forthcoming from Everton or most other teams out there to a player with a handful of first team games.
I believe he will sign.
 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spor...ward-kendall-surprise-winning-everton-9307317
Meanwhile, it looks increasingly likely that Luke Garbutt will not be at Everton next season – and I understand the situation.
It’s not about the contract, it’s purely about playing opportunities.

Once a young player has had a taste of first team football he doesn’t want to find himself back on the subs bench again. The problem Garbutt has is that he has his country’s left-back standing in his way.Kevin Richardson had the same problem at Everton. No matter how well he had played – and that was usually very well – I always had to tell him ‘I’m sorry Kev, but Kevin Sheedy is fit.’

Richo subsequently left Everton and went on to have an excellent career, winning title medals at Arsenal.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top