Ross Barkley

Status
Not open for further replies.
It stirred a honest nest up on players salaries a player turns Down 140 k you have opened a can of worms!

perhaps that's true in itself...especially if Barkley was thinking to himself 'I'm here for the long haul' and not thinking of leaving, if that's the case. Still think Lukaku is worth more than Barkley in wages but Barkley probably doesn't think so. Negotiating at the same time might have been a bad move...good point
 
Koeman had every right to make the statement in my honest opinion. He was looking after his clubs interest. If Barkley and his advisors sat on it all summer he would have been worth buttons in January or gone for nothing next summer. The statement had to be made, either sign or be sold. The contract had been on the table long enough before he said anything.

Koeman has played a blinder in my opinion, the lad will sign and know who the boss is.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm finding all this talk of an ultimatum confusing. Does anyone really think that Everton's need to sell a player reaching the final year their contract, would come as a surprise to Ross and his agent? Surely this has many precedents. The fact that Koeman stated the obvious, when quizzed about it by the Press, wouldn't change anything. The original comments weren't even specifically about Ross, but more a general observation about any player refusing to sign a contract extension. They will be sold. It never was an ultimatum, more the time limit of when the club will have to take steps to protect their investment.
 
I'm sorry, but I'm finding all this talk of an ultimatum confusing. Does anyone really think that Everton's need to sell a player reaching the final year their contract, would come as a surprise to Ross and his agent? Surely this has many precedents. The fact that Koeman stated the obvious, when quizzed about it by the Press, wouldn't change anything. The original comments weren't even specifically about Ross, but more a general observation about any player refusing to sign a contract extension. They will be sold. It never was an ultimatum, more the time limit of when the club will have to take steps to protect their investment.

First, no, it wouldn't be a surprise to Ross or his agent. I'm not sure what your point is with that to be honest - as I've said before, Ross did the same thing in 2014 and signed in late July amidst speculation all over the place about his future.

Second, it was very clearly an ultimatum from Koeman. His words were unambiguous - sign by this date or be sold.
 

If any team was holding back trying to pick him up on the cheap, these rumours will force their hands. We win either way.
 
Koeman had every right to make the statement in my honest opinion. He was looking after his clubs interest. If Barkley and his advisors sat on it all summer he would have been worth buttons in January or gone for nothing next summer. The statement had to be made, either sign or be sold. The contract had been on the table long enough before he said anything.

Koeman has played a blinder in my opinion, the lad will sign and know who the boss is.

It didn't have to be done in public and by the manager. Indeed, it definitely shouldn't have.

The club has every right to protect its assets and sell them at peak value when they want to. But it should be done at boardroom level and not by alienating the player in the press.

Once that deadline went down by Koeman in the press, if Barkley signed it he'd have been publicly bending over and people would have called him thick and played like a fiddle. In essence, that ultimatum ensured this drags out at the bare minimum, because no agent worth their salt would have done a damn thing once Koeman said what he said, or at worst it publicised our weakness on the issue and devalued the asset.

If Barkley signs now, it's after Koeman's deadline and makes the manager look foolish. If we sell at a stupid price, it's because the manager basically transfer listed him and exposed our weakness, making him look foolish. He's done anything but 'play a blinder'.
 
I actually believe it should have been and it was.

Koeman doesn't handle contracts. It's not his job. Even on that base level he should have kept his gob shut, but there's loads of other reasons that deadline shouldn't have existed.

His answer should have been and should always be simple - "I don't handle contracts, you'd have to speak to the board, my job is managing the team get ready for each game."
 

First, no, it wouldn't be a surprise to Ross or his agent. I'm not sure what your point is with that to be honest - as I've said before, Ross did the same thing in 2014 and signed in late July amidst speculation all over the place about his future.

Second, it was very clearly an ultimatum from Koeman. His words were unambiguous - sign by this date or be sold.

My point is that as this was common knowledge to everyone concerned, it wasn't an ultimattum. It was the club using a often used framework which would allow the club to :

a/ protect their return on their investment, and

b/ be able to put into place plans for the future.

Also, if Ross agrees to sign tomorrow, do you think that he wouldn't be allowed to by Koeman? Of course not. So there again, it's not an ultimatum, it's simply stating the obvious of how the club intends to proceed. Would it have been the same under Moyes or Martinez? Yes, it's the way all clubs operate. Also, he can't be sold unless he agrees to go. Again, how is that an ultimatum?
 
Koeman doesn't handle contracts. It's not his job. Even on that base level he should have kept his gob shut, but there's loads of other reasons that deadline shouldn't have existed.

His answer should have been and should always be simple - "I don't handle contracts, you'd have to speak to the board, my job is managing the team get ready for each game."

Nah. I like that he put pressure on Barkley. Sorry I just do. It may not have been entirely accurate, but i'm really ok with how it all has been handled and think you're making too big of a deal of it all really.
 
It didn't have to be done in public and by the manager. Indeed, it definitely shouldn't have.

The club has every right to protect its assets and sell them at peak value when they want to. But it should be done at boardroom level and not by alienating the player in the press.

Once that deadline went down by Koeman in the press, if Barkley signed it he'd have been publicly bending over and people would have called him thick and played like a fiddle. In essence, that ultimatum ensured this drags out at the bare minimum, because no agent worth their salt would have done a damn thing once Koeman said what he said, or at worst it publicised our weakness on the issue and devalued the asset.

If Barkley signs now, it's after Koeman's deadline and makes the manager look foolish. If we sell at a stupid price, it's because the manager basically transfer listed him and exposed our weakness, making him look foolish. He's done anything but 'play a blinder'.

Agree completely. I'm quite a fan of Koeman in general but this was a bad decision, no matter who was behind it. Should have been kept quiet.
 
Nah. I like that he put pressure on Barkley. Sorry I just do. It may not have been entirely accurate, but i'm really ok with how it all has been handled and think you're making too big of a deal of it all really.

We've disagreed over this since the day it happened mate, but I don't think Tubes is going OTT here at all if I'm being honest

He's just being matter of fact in my eyes
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top