Case For Hall
Some may say ‘here we go again’, and that strikes a chord with me. George Hall is the starlet a number of Premier League clubs are reportedly interested in signing during the January transfer window. All done and dusted with proceeds likely to be spent on loanees Sanderson and Bielik. Or so we are led to believe.
Really annoying speculation once again, and particularly so with the team doing very well right now. But maybe the club considers such a deal to be necessary with finances as they are at St. Andrew’s? Reluctantly I could appreciate and understand that if it was the case. However, if there is truth in the story that George Hall is indeed the starlet, we have to lose to facilitate the permanent acquisition of a couple of loanees, then how unfortunate and sad is that?
Once again, we would see ourselves as the selling club, without really holding on to the possible future advancement of our club. My point here is not that George might leave and be added to the lengthy list of ‘early talent sold’ but, rather, why sell to fund two loanees in positions that can be replaced?
Maybe it is not just this factor, but if selling the player is essential for our club to carry on and survive then, again, I could understand and accept that. But building a young, talented team is what John Eustace regularly preaches and he also quickly points out that these players are the future for the club. My question centres on whether the future refers to the ongoing existence of the club and therefore selling to survive or, instead, it means developing youth for success and keeping ‘wanted talent’ away from the vultures?
George Hall will be an interesting case during the upcoming transfer window as to how we are shaping up for the future. Che Adams and Jude Bellingham went for decent money and, although regrettable from the fans point of view, it was understandable in both cases given the circumstances each time. But the meagre figure being banded around for our latest ‘starlet’ is hard to accept, especially if the true reason is for loanee signings being made permanent.
Mitchell Bray
By making comments:
- All we ask is that it relates to the Club that we all love. It can inform, question, challenge, criticise even….but it should not be written to threaten and/or cause personal offence.
- By making comments on the above article, you agree to Blues Trust retaining your email address should we need to make contact with you for admin purposes. Let us know at admin@bluestrust.org if you do not wish us to do this. We will not give out your email address to any 3rd party sources.
The Trust reserves the right to moderate any comments made (in consultation with the writer) or to deny publication if comments are considered to be inconsistent with the requirements identified above.
We need to build a a Team around our young talent no sell them.Hall has another 18months left on his contract so let’s see how the land lies then.We have another great talent in Gordon to come back shortly so that should ease some of the problems of loan players at the back so while Sanderson is a good player it’s not a must to sign him.If we can get promoted within the next couple of years then we will have no problem holding on to our youngsters so that should be the goal of the Club.
Maybe we are just skint and need to sell anything that anybody wants. Need big money investors.
Blues have other assets JJ & Bellingham besidesHall.We now have first team players ripe to sell on in january Bacuna,Chong,Hogan,Ruddy,Dean and Jukey.All are assets to a Chinese triad type bottom line profit or loss board.
But hopefully by then new owners with a different view .They should be asking which loan players can we keep Sanderson,Bielik perhaps who can return next season Hannibal and Longelo hopefully.If not who are John Eustaces main first and second targets.I am hoping that the ground is open next season and a much better attitude about the place I wait in anticiption plus a small amount of trepidation roll on February
KRO
Ruddy,Dean,Hogan,Colin,Roberts,Friend and definitely Juke are in the back end of the Careers and not worth a lot,Bacuna wouldnt fetch a descent fee because he’s not consistent,Chong perhaps two or three million so in fact we do not have that many assests,all our assests are in the potential of our younger players.
thats 7 players plus the young kids =no team =obliteration. Take over or no take over.These players will be sold to fill in our black hole rumoured at 120 million they will not be replaced.
KRO
My feeling is that we are getting firmly stuck at the crossroads here. Tracey, James and Smithy make solid points which all hinges at what state of play our proposed takeover is at. Yes we must be patient and yes we mustn’t rock any boat for fear of sounding troublesome, but there does come a stage when asking the direct questions is needed. Plodding around in the dark trying to find the light switch has been our task for nearly a decade. Takeover with substance and reasonable collateral should avoid cheap sell-offs of rising talents (assets) as Tracey points out. Messrs Richardson and Lopez I feel could shed a little insight into the current situation and whether their policy would be in line to Tracey’s.
Hall looks a great prospect and the figures of £3m being quoted is derisory and not likely to get us much. If someone was offering say £6m and you could reinvest in strengthening the team in multiple positions then it would be okay as the values of the likes of Sanderson, Longelo and Bielik is only gonna increase and they’ll be worth more than Hall. We are trying to build a squad otherwise all your loan players return and you’re back to square one.
If he is good enough for the prem we should be talking a 5 figure fee