eric olthwaite wrote:
gazurtoids wrote:A bit simplistic to be spot on.
For a start, how can whether he was "good" be irrelevant? If we had a team of 10 utter shithouses and Billy Paynter, Billy would probably be "one of the better players" (just). Would that make him worth hanging on to? No, we'd want shut of all 11 of them.
The key calculation in Clayton's case is how valuable he is to us versus how much another club might want to pay for him. And the wages he may or may not be asking for. Compare to Beckford: he was worth keeping even though his contract was running down because he was worth far more to us than the money anyone would pay us.
Clayton isn't anywhere near as valuable to us. If (a) he wants to much in wages to extend his contract and (b) another club is willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for him and (c) a better player can be brought in, it makes sense to sell. It's not guaranteed to work, as we saw with Schmeichel, but it doesn't say the same things about our recruitment policy that other sales have.
But my whole point is that the Batesreality is that we should all fucking know by now that we're going to get very few of the signings we want / need. For a start, all those contracted players that we have supposedly got shut of - eg Billy Paynter - are still being paid.
There is every likelihood that we could sign a better striker than Billy P, and much less likelihood that we could sign a better midfielder than Clayton.
And the context of my comments is also that I see no reason to believe a fucking word of what has been reported about his wage negotiations. He could have been asking for an extra £10k a week, and he could have been asking for an extra £1k. Who knows?
Based on past experience we should also all recognise that any transfer fee received is more likely to be spent on debt, pipework or carpets than another player. What evidence is there to believe anything else?
It's not guaranteed to work, as we saw with Schmeichel
Mind giving me a quick list of the examples where it has worked over the last few seasons then? No need to go to more than one side of A4...
Well, you'll note the key word in my reasoning is "if".
If Clayton is sold but the team is improved, it's a good deal.
If Clayton is sold but an inferior player takes his place, it's a bad deal.
Obviously, you could have said the same about the Gradel or Howson deals, but:
a) this isn't being done right before the window closes, strongly suggesting that the idea is to recruit a replacement, a la Schmeichel, rather than pocket the cash.
b) Clayton is not so good, in my opinion, that an adequate replacement is unlikely. This is where I dispute your "irrelevant" assessment.
It was unlikely that Howson/Gradel replacements could be found, even if we had the time, so you could identity them as bad deals immediately.
It seemed/seems far more likely that replacements for Schmeichel/Clayton could/can be found, so I can't judge this decision fully just yet.