SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ? Whoever they are
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ? Whoever they are
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees.
SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ? Whoever they are
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees.
Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".
SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ? Whoever they are
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees.
Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".
I know Gallagher is only young but I wish footballer's would remember that an agent is their employee, not their boss.
(I use the word 'employee' in the loosest possible sense, I actually mean parasite).
SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ? Whoever they are
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees.
Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".
Gallagher belongs to Chelsea, Chelsea control things. Have Chelsea broke any contracts? Probably not.
So, when Chelsea loaned Conor to Charlton they seriously didn’t think that we would be in anything other than a desperate fight to remain in the Championship? They were happy for him to be in a dog fight then, so why not now? As I see it, surely it’s better for a player to have been in a team that is fighting than a team with high expectations and highly likely to ultimately fall short.
He's not the same player anymore, at the start of the season he'd never played mens football and that might have out off some of the 'top teams' off, clearly that's not the case anymore.
SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ? Whoever they are
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees.
Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".
I know Gallagher is only young but I wish footballer's would remember that an agent is their employee, not their boss.
(I use the word 'employee' in the loosest possible sense, I actually mean parasite).
Much better in the pre-agent era when players were completely controlled by their clubs.
For Chelsea, Swansea and Gallagher himself yesterday's performance and the fact he set up a goal for Brewster that contributed in no small way to a win.
One swallow and all that but I would defy any of us to say that the decision was a wrong one from the perspective of his development. One win in 17 and absolutely no signs that as a team we are turning that run around or that we are going to get the reinforcements we so desperately need. Yes he is still playing with some youngsters such as Brewster but he is streets ahead of Davison as things stand.
Ignore what he is agent would say. What would his Dad say? I am absolutely all for loyalty but loyalty works both ways and if Gallagher had turned into a duff then we simply would not have hesitated to send him back. It is a professional game and for every Conor Gallagher there are half a dozen Joe Dodoos. And none of us would have though twice about sending him back to Rangers would we?
One final thing because I've probably said more than enough. Because of the way that we looked after Gallagher I have no doubt that Chelsea will in the future be willing to send us another player (I accept that Swansea might be their first port of call but they have more than enough youngsters.
If we were told that we could only have a player of Conor Gallagher's ability for half a season would we really tell them where to go?
@Addick Addict. Nobody denies that Charlton knew perfectly well he had a recall clause, which could be activated. The issue is that we went into the window believing that Chelsea would not activate it. That was not a blind hope. Both Flo and Cudicini had been to the training ground, most recently during December, and Flo had been asked and gave an answer which basically treated the idea of a recall as irrational based on the criteria Chelsea had set out when they lent him to us.
The issue is that half way through the window all that suddenly changed and we got shafted. Why, and how? Agent. An agent, who, it turns out has a stable of nobodies in his portfolio. This agent persuaded somebody at Chelsea - but not, apparently the football pros - that this was a good idea. That is what stinks.
As I have said before, if something happens which doesnt appear to make a lot of sense, follow the money, and there you will find an agent. Such as, why on earth was there no counter-offer when we sold Gomez to Liverpool for such a pitiful amount.? Another Lifer rumbled that one.
@se9addick has a sort of a point that players need protection from the exploitative elements which can be found in Club boardrooms but it has gone too far the other way. Too may useless bottom-feeders are making ridiculous money as “agents” and they need to be reined in. It appears that our new Chairman agrees, even if he might not put it in those terms.
personally i think we like to blame the agents for everything and its convenient for us, the clubs and the fans to do that - they work for and are instructed by the players - i reckon he was tired of carrying this team over the last few months and wasn't convinced that was about to change very soon
personally i think we like to blame the agents for everything and its convenient for us, the clubs and the fans to do that - they work for and are instructed by the players - i reckon he was tired of carrying this team over the last few months and wasn't convinced that was about to change very soon
While I am one of the most vociferous critics of agents, and will continue to be, until their practices are regulated, the information I have was provided by an authoritative source, and actually wasn't the main topic of the conversation we had. That source would also assure you that your reckoning is wide of the mark on this occasion - but it was already debunked by the Talksport reporter covering the move.
Since then the SLP has also referred to the key role agent, and I don't think that they spoke to the same person as I did.
Maybe if we had brought in a couple of decent signings early doors in the window, and the likes of Lyle and Jonny had been back earlier, he might have stayed?
Maybe if we had brought in a couple of decent signings early doors in the window, and the likes of Lyle and Jonny had been back earlier, he might have stayed?
Tbh conor has proven (to me) he will give his all in a losing team. Consistently our best player and we relied on him quite a lot imo. Even made the national under 21s and scored.
Now they want him to prove himself in a promotion race. Good move for chelsea and him. Already with one assist and a sure starter. Case closed.
Tbh conor has proven (to me) he will give his all in a losing team. Consistently our best player and we relied on him quite a lot imo. Even made the national under 21s and scored.
Now they want him to prove himself in a promotion race. Good move for chelsea and him. Already with one assist and a sure starter. Case closed.
No hard feelings against Conor. He was never our player only a visitor who was a welcome guest and behaved impeccably. His reputation went far and wide so he's gone elsewhere at his own choosing. To blame agents seems misguided as they work for the player, not the other way around. People complain about estate agents but they are simply carrying out the sellers instruction's. Connor probably realised he'd maxed out his stock value at the Valley so cashed his chips and put them on another higher value option. Sad s have said if he does well on the run in with a proton chasing team this will add more profile and ultimately money to him. Players are now like mini busineses and they are all trying to max their value. Gone are the days of the likes of Steve Bull staying at a second tier club their whole career despite having ability to play at a higher level. As Bowyer would say "it is what it is"
No hard feelings against Conor. He was never our player only a visitor who was a welcome guest and behaved impeccably. His reputation went far and wide so he's gone elsewhere at his own choosing. To blame agents seems misguided as they work for the player, not the other way around. People complain about estate agents but they are simply carrying out the sellers instruction's. Connor probably realised he'd maxed out his stock value at the Valley so cashed his chips and put them on another higher value option. Sad s have said if he does well on the run in with a proton chasing team this will add more profile and ultimately money to him. Players are now like mini busineses and they are all trying to max their value. Gone are the days of the likes of Steve Bull staying at a second tier club their whole career despite having ability to play at a higher level. As Bowyer would say "it is what it is"
If only that were true. They take money from both sides, and anyone else who gets involved. For a rare example of this which is out in the daylight, why don't you read up on the Willie McKay dynasty and their role in the tragic Emiliano Sala affair.
Whether most of them work in the long -term interest of their player clients is anyway highly disputable. If their best fees come as a result of a transaction, it is obviously in their financial interests to engineer as many transactions as possible. I bet Radostin Kishishev's agent was a bit frustrated, maybe Sergio Aguero's too, although in the latter case I am sure his agents have other revenues such as "image rights management" and other such bollocks.
Anyway, I repeat, neither I nor the SLP dreamed up the story of Gallagher's agent's role ourselves.
@Addick Addict. Nobody denies that Charlton knew perfectly well he had a recall clause, which could be activated. The issue is that we went into the window believing that Chelsea would not activate it. That was not a blind hope. Both Flo and Cudicini had been to the training ground, most recently during December, and Flo had been asked and gave an answer which basically treated the idea of a recall as irrational based on the criteria Chelsea had set out when they lent him to us.
The issue is that half way through the window all that suddenly changed and we got shafted. Why, and how? Agent. An agent, who, it turns out has a stable of nobodies in his portfolio. This agent persuaded somebody at Chelsea - but not, apparently the football pros - that this was a good idea. That is what stinks.
As I have said before, if something happens which doesnt appear to make a lot of sense, follow the money, and there you will find an agent. Such as, why on earth was there no counter-offer when we sold Gomez to Liverpool for such a pitiful amount.? Another Lifer rumbled that one.
@se9addick has a sort of a point that players need protection from the exploitative elements which can be found in Club boardrooms but it has gone too far the other way. Too may useless bottom-feeders are making ridiculous money as “agents” and they need to be reined in. It appears that our new Chairman agrees, even if he might not put it in those terms.
I am not doubting that money is the evil which drives the game. When we were in the old 3rd Division trying to survive on crowds of 5,000 to 6,000 the gap between us and Division 1 was massive and insurmountable.
Chelsea have left us with 16 days to get a replacement for Gallagher and we've now had 19 days (and probably more given that we wouldn't have started looking on 1st January) to sign any number of players but, as yet, only one new one has materialised to date. In addition, most of the deals are done in the last 48 hours of the window for the very reason that clubs have to shift players out in order to fund or allow new ones to come in.
Gallagher and Chelsea aren't responsible for the situation we are in. It is the previous regime, injuries and seeming reluctance of at least one of our targets to join us that we are where we are.
I find it puzzling that as fans we are all more than willing to tear into club owners, managers, the players of course, journalists, and fellow fans, and yet there is an extraordinary reluctance, visible here, to put agents under scrutiny. I suppose one reason is that they are smart enough (with the exception of Bonne's guy) to keep themselves under the public radar. I currently cannot think of how I would find out the name of Gallagher's agent, other than a direct tip-off. But it perplexes me why so many intelligent posters are so ready to give them an easy ride, yet criticise all the other groups often with very little knowledge of actual situations.
Mind you, it's not just fans. Yesterday, Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence, which supposedly offers insights into sporting finance, was prompted by the sensational Dortmund debut of Erling Haarland to offer this tweet.
he was instantly upbraided by more aware people for not apparently being aware of the full details of the transaction, which you can read here. The kid's agent got €15 ml for his involvement. Fifteen million euros. And where has that money come from? Patently not from the player. It came from Dortmund, as did the €10m that went to Haarland's Dad, the (in) famous Alf - Inge.
No hard feelings against Conor. He was never our player only a visitor who was a welcome guest and behaved impeccably. His reputation went far and wide so he's gone elsewhere at his own choosing. To blame agents seems misguided as they work for the player, not the other way around. People complain about estate agents but they are simply carrying out the sellers instruction's. Connor probably realised he'd maxed out his stock value at the Valley so cashed his chips and put them on another higher value option. Sad s have said if he does well on the run in with a proton chasing team this will add more profile and ultimately money to him. Players are now like mini busineses and they are all trying to max their value. Gone are the days of the likes of Steve Bull staying at a second tier club their whole career despite having ability to play at a higher level. As Bowyer would say "it is what it is"
If only that were true. They take money from both sides, and anyone else who gets involved. For a rare example of this which is out in the daylight, why don't you read up on the Willie McKay dynasty and their role in the tragic Emiliano Sala affair.
Whether most of them work in the long -term interest of their player clients is anyway highly disputable. If their best fees come as a result of a transaction, it is obviously in their financial interests to engineer as many transactions as possible. I bet Radostin Kishishev's agent was a bit frustrated, maybe Sergio Aguero's too, although in the latter case I am sure his agents have other revenues such as "image rights management" and other such bollocks.
Anyway, I repeat, neither I nor the SLP dreamed up the story of Gallagher's agent's role ourselves.
So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying that Charlton wanted him to stay, Chelsea wanted him to stay, the much-maligned Chelsea development team wanted him to stay, the player himself wanted to stay but the whole thing was engineered by a big bad agent who's will and desire just to make some more shekels purely for himself somehow trumped all of the other interests I mentioned earlier?
You seriously believe that?
However, you are correct that agents do - or at least did - work for both sides of a transaction, even though this appears to be in direct contravention of FIFA directives. For black and white evidence of this see the court cases of Newcastle and Birmingham.
@Addick Addict. Nobody denies that Charlton knew perfectly well he had a recall clause, which could be activated. The issue is that we went into the window believing that Chelsea would not activate it. That was not a blind hope. Both Flo and Cudicini had been to the training ground, most recently during December, and Flo had been asked and gave an answer which basically treated the idea of a recall as irrational based on the criteria Chelsea had set out when they lent him to us.
The issue is that half way through the window all that suddenly changed and we got shafted. Why, and how? Agent. An agent, who, it turns out has a stable of nobodies in his portfolio. This agent persuaded somebody at Chelsea - but not, apparently the football pros - that this was a good idea. That is what stinks.
As I have said before, if something happens which doesnt appear to make a lot of sense, follow the money, and there you will find an agent. Such as, why on earth was there no counter-offer when we sold Gomez to Liverpool for such a pitiful amount.? Another Lifer rumbled that one.
@se9addick has a sort of a point that players need protection from the exploitative elements which can be found in Club boardrooms but it has gone too far the other way. Too may useless bottom-feeders are making ridiculous money as “agents” and they need to be reined in. It appears that our new Chairman agrees, even if he might not put it in those terms.
Whilst all this may be true (and I agree about agents being a stain on the game), you can sort of understand why it may be better for Conors career to have a chance of being in the starting 11 for a team heading into the championship play offs rather than playing week in week out for us to eventually get relegated.
I think his development may have been better served staying here and learning from LB what he can't learn elsewhere but as much as I might love being part of this team I don't think I'd be too disappointed being put into the starting 11 of a team at the top.
No hard feelings against Conor. He was never our player only a visitor who was a welcome guest and behaved impeccably. His reputation went far and wide so he's gone elsewhere at his own choosing. To blame agents seems misguided as they work for the player, not the other way around. People complain about estate agents but they are simply carrying out the sellers instruction's. Connor probably realised he'd maxed out his stock value at the Valley so cashed his chips and put them on another higher value option. Sad s have said if he does well on the run in with a proton chasing team this will add more profile and ultimately money to him. Players are now like mini busineses and they are all trying to max their value. Gone are the days of the likes of Steve Bull staying at a second tier club their whole career despite having ability to play at a higher level. As Bowyer would say "it is what it is"
If only that were true. They take money from both sides, and anyone else who gets involved. For a rare example of this which is out in the daylight, why don't you read up on the Willie McKay dynasty and their role in the tragic Emiliano Sala affair.
Whether most of them work in the long -term interest of their player clients is anyway highly disputable. If their best fees come as a result of a transaction, it is obviously in their financial interests to engineer as many transactions as possible. I bet Radostin Kishishev's agent was a bit frustrated, maybe Sergio Aguero's too, although in the latter case I am sure his agents have other revenues such as "image rights management" and other such bollocks.
Anyway, I repeat, neither I nor the SLP dreamed up the story of Gallagher's agent's role ourselves.
So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying that Charlton wanted him to stay, Chelsea wanted him to stay, the much-maligned Chelsea development team wanted him to stay, the player himself wanted to stay but the whole thing was engineered by a big bad agent who's will and desire just to make some more shekels purely for himself somehow trumped all of the other interests I mentioned earlier?
You seriously believe that?
However, you are correct that agents do - or at least did - work for both sides of a transaction, even though this appears to be in direct contravention of FIFA directives. For black and white evidence of this see the court cases of Newcastle and Birmingham.
I see it being a bit of both. Chelsea and the development team there are perfectly happy for him to stay here and complete the rest of his loan but his agent has gone and found a club willing to pay Chelsea (and him) more money and as long as Swansea can guarentee the number of minutes that we also agreed to, Chelsea are happy for him to go there as well.
Only a possoble scenario but let's imagine Conor does converse with his agent and maybe he expressed concerns. Maybe those concerns emaminated from concerns Bowyer might have been having around signings and his contract. Then look at one win in 15 and maybe the agent felt it might be best to get Conor out of there to a more stable club and conveyed that to Chelsea. Is that a feasible explanation, given what we have discovered? Maybe hearing Bowyer say he is having to play Conor more than he would like contributed. Maybe some of the things Bowyer has said have been giving us clues. It is only speculation of course.
Comments
Maybe he just wanted to fit in with the locals.
Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.
It wasn't the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.
I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)
I know Gallagher is only young but I wish footballer's would remember that an agent is their employee, not their boss.
(I use the word 'employee' in the loosest possible sense, I actually mean parasite).
Nice assist Connor. I wish that would have been played through to Nabby to swipe in.
One swallow and all that but I would defy any of us to say that the decision was a wrong one from the perspective of his development. One win in 17 and absolutely no signs that as a team we are turning that run around or that we are going to get the reinforcements we so desperately need. Yes he is still playing with some youngsters such as Brewster but he is streets ahead of Davison as things stand.
Ignore what he is agent would say. What would his Dad say? I am absolutely all for loyalty but loyalty works both ways and if Gallagher had turned into a duff then we simply would not have hesitated to send him back. It is a professional game and for every Conor Gallagher there are half a dozen Joe Dodoos. And none of us would have though twice about sending him back to Rangers would we?
One final thing because I've probably said more than enough. Because of the way that we looked after Gallagher I have no doubt that Chelsea will in the future be willing to send us another player (I accept that Swansea might be their first port of call but they have more than enough youngsters.
If we were told that we could only have a player of Conor Gallagher's ability for half a season would we really tell them where to go?
The issue is that half way through the window all that suddenly changed and we got shafted. Why, and how? Agent. An agent, who, it turns out has a stable of nobodies in his portfolio. This agent persuaded somebody at Chelsea - but not, apparently the football pros - that this was a good idea. That is what stinks.
As I have said before, if something happens which doesnt appear to make a lot of sense, follow the money, and there you will find an agent. Such as, why on earth was there no counter-offer when we sold Gomez to Liverpool for such a pitiful amount.? Another Lifer rumbled that one.
@se9addick has a sort of a point that players need protection from the exploitative elements which can be found in Club boardrooms but it has gone too far the other way. Too may useless bottom-feeders are making ridiculous money as “agents” and they need to be reined in. It appears that our new Chairman agrees, even if he might not put it in those terms.
Since then the SLP has also referred to the key role agent, and I don't think that they spoke to the same person as I did.
Sounds good to me.
Whether most of them work in the long -term interest of their player clients is anyway highly disputable. If their best fees come as a result of a transaction, it is obviously in their financial interests to engineer as many transactions as possible. I bet Radostin Kishishev's agent was a bit frustrated, maybe Sergio Aguero's too, although in the latter case I am sure his agents have other revenues such as "image rights management" and other such bollocks.
Anyway, I repeat, neither I nor the SLP dreamed up the story of Gallagher's agent's role ourselves.
Chelsea have left us with 16 days to get a replacement for Gallagher and we've now had 19 days (and probably more given that we wouldn't have started looking on 1st January) to sign any number of players but, as yet, only one new one has materialised to date. In addition, most of the deals are done in the last 48 hours of the window for the very reason that clubs have to shift players out in order to fund or allow new ones to come in.
Gallagher and Chelsea aren't responsible for the situation we are in. It is the previous regime, injuries and seeming reluctance of at least one of our targets to join us that we are where we are.
Mind you, it's not just fans. Yesterday, Nick Harris of Sporting Intelligence, which supposedly offers insights into sporting finance, was prompted by the sensational Dortmund debut of Erling Haarland to offer this tweet.
he was instantly upbraided by more aware people for not apparently being aware of the full details of the transaction, which you can read here. The kid's agent got €15 ml for his involvement. Fifteen million euros. And where has that money come from? Patently not from the player. It came from Dortmund, as did the €10m that went to Haarland's Dad, the (in) famous Alf - Inge.
You seriously believe that?
However, you are correct that agents do - or at least did - work for both sides of a transaction, even though this appears to be in direct contravention of FIFA directives. For black and white evidence of this see the court cases of Newcastle and Birmingham.
I think his development may have been better served staying here and learning from LB what he can't learn elsewhere but as much as I might love being part of this team I don't think I'd be too disappointed being put into the starting 11 of a team at the top.
I see it being a bit of both. Chelsea and the development team there are perfectly happy for him to stay here and complete the rest of his loan but his agent has gone and found a club willing to pay Chelsea (and him) more money and as long as Swansea can guarentee the number of minutes that we also agreed to, Chelsea are happy for him to go there as well.