Gavin Hoyte
Gavin Hoyte
Having just read the report on the reserves win over Norwich today, I realised that Gavin Hoyte is still actually an Arsenal player!!
I know he is only 21 but he hasnt played a competitive for us since 2008-2009 season, he keeps going out on loan where he never seems to shine, whats the point in having him on the wage bill?
Is he going to be the new Mark Randall? Being part of the squad every pre season but not even getting a game in the Carling Cup!!
I know he is only 21 but he hasnt played a competitive for us since 2008-2009 season, he keeps going out on loan where he never seems to shine, whats the point in having him on the wage bill?
Is he going to be the new Mark Randall? Being part of the squad every pre season but not even getting a game in the Carling Cup!!
- Rugby Gooner
- Posts: 3414
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:25 pm
- Location: Rugby
- Perryashburtongroves
- Posts: 13403
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 6:18 pm
- Location: At the start of a glorious era.
Perhaps it isn't like this these days, but if I was a young lad with decent talent, I'd want to be playing first team football somewhere, challenging myself and wanting to impress. Saying that though, it's probably a nice life being a squad player at Arsenal. Live in London, get paid good money, mess about with your mates and not really have to push yourself.
This may explain a lot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... tract.html
Another LONG TERM contract given to a pile of shite who had not even proved himself.No wonder he aint going nowhere
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... tract.html
Another LONG TERM contract given to a pile of shite who had not even proved himself.No wonder he aint going nowhere
- QuartzGooner
- Posts: 14474
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
- Location: London
- olgitgooner
- Posts: 7431
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:39 am
- Location: Brexitland
To be fair, long term thats probably sensible. Wont work out every time, but if the lad was just on the fringes of the squad then, he'll hardly have commanded a massive wage at all. Getting him to sign a (presumably) 5 year deal is farily sensible- he's not on much money but it means that if he suddenly does progress, he's not got a deal about to run out so his best option is to negotiate another deal with Arsenal (for much better money) because its either that or wait 2 or 3 years on shit money (relatively speaking) before being able to move to wherever wants him. So if he becomes good then having signed a 5 year deal at 18, you can tie him down to a proper deal at 20 taking him to his peak years at around 25.donaldo wrote:This may explain a lot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... tract.html
Another LONG TERM contract given to a pile of shite who had not even proved himself.No wonder he aint going nowhere
If he doesnt become good enough for Arsenal but is good enough for a middle of the road PL/ good championship team, the fact he has a good few years left on his deal means you'll get a pretty good fee (more than enough to turn a good profit even accounting for his wages whilst coming through the ranks)
Sometimes (as appears to be the case here) it'll backfire and you're stuck with a lad who seems not to have much future about lower championship/ league 1 level but then the wages are still low so it wont cost too much before you let him go, and the wages will be low enough that other clubs might even be happy to loan him and pay the full amount, meaning that he costs you very little. There doesnt need to be many successes for this kind of policy to be well worth doing
- Rugby Gooner
- Posts: 3414
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:25 pm
- Location: Rugby
- brazilianGOONER
- Posts: 9208
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:27 am
- Location: i think we're parked, man
- Contact:
hey mate, we don't take kindly to folks who think too much around here.safcftm wrote: To be fair, long term thats probably sensible. Wont work out every time, but if the lad was just on the fringes of the squad then, he'll hardly have commanded a massive wage at all. Getting him to sign a (presumably) 5 year deal is farily sensible- he's not on much money but it means that if he suddenly does progress, he's not got a deal about to run out so his best option is to negotiate another deal with Arsenal (for much better money) because its either that or wait 2 or 3 years on shit money (relatively speaking) before being able to move to wherever wants him. So if he becomes good then having signed a 5 year deal at 18, you can tie him down to a proper deal at 20 taking him to his peak years at around 25.
If he doesnt become good enough for Arsenal but is good enough for a middle of the road PL/ good championship team, the fact he has a good few years left on his deal means you'll get a pretty good fee (more than enough to turn a good profit even accounting for his wages whilst coming through the ranks)
Sometimes (as appears to be the case here) it'll backfire and you're stuck with a lad who seems not to have much future about lower championship/ league 1 level but then the wages are still low so it wont cost too much before you let him go, and the wages will be low enough that other clubs might even be happy to loan him and pay the full amount, meaning that he costs you very little. There doesnt need to be many successes for this kind of policy to be well worth doing
arsene's stupid for paying money to a young player and you should not question that in here
it's pretty simple: is the mentioned player a top quality international? NO? is he as good as ljungberg or bergkamp? NO? does he still have a contract? YES, right? there you go, absolute nonsense from the manager.
see, that's all you need to think about.
21 years old, hasn't played competitively for us in three seasons, awarded a long term deal.
How much longer are we going to carry on down this route?
If he's not deemed worthy of a squad role at the age of 21 and we are signing players from League One of a similar age, why the hell do we hold on to him
Randall, Simpson, Aliadiere all players where it was perfectly apparent they were never Arsenal class. Mannone, Vela, Denilson all in that category too.
How much longer are we going to carry on down this route?
If he's not deemed worthy of a squad role at the age of 21 and we are signing players from League One of a similar age, why the hell do we hold on to him
Randall, Simpson, Aliadiere all players where it was perfectly apparent they were never Arsenal class. Mannone, Vela, Denilson all in that category too.
Yep, as the GIC says "we live in a world where people make instant judgements"Babatunde wrote:To be fair SteveO, how can you say he's shit when he never plays? Give him time. People are too quick to judge. Aliadiere was also written off as a joke waste of money and look at him now?!
Always best to take a 5 year, maturing view of the likes of wonderboy Aliadiere, and that midfield maestro Randall
- JMascis666
- Posts: 1887
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:46 am
- Location: N16
That reminds me how is Roarie Deacon doing at Sunderland this year? I always thought he had a bit about him so was surprised to seem leave Arsenal when he did.safcftm wrote:To be fair, long term thats probably sensible. Wont work out every time, but if the lad was just on the fringes of the squad then, he'll hardly have commanded a massive wage at all. Getting him to sign a (presumably) 5 year deal is farily sensible- he's not on much money but it means that if he suddenly does progress, he's not got a deal about to run out so his best option is to negotiate another deal with Arsenal (for much better money) because its either that or wait 2 or 3 years on shit money (relatively speaking) before being able to move to wherever wants him. So if he becomes good then having signed a 5 year deal at 18, you can tie him down to a proper deal at 20 taking him to his peak years at around 25.donaldo wrote:This may explain a lot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... tract.html
Another LONG TERM contract given to a pile of shite who had not even proved himself.No wonder he aint going nowhere
If he doesnt become good enough for Arsenal but is good enough for a middle of the road PL/ good championship team, the fact he has a good few years left on his deal means you'll get a pretty good fee (more than enough to turn a good profit even accounting for his wages whilst coming through the ranks)
Sometimes (as appears to be the case here) it'll backfire and you're stuck with a lad who seems not to have much future about lower championship/ league 1 level but then the wages are still low so it wont cost too much before you let him go, and the wages will be low enough that other clubs might even be happy to loan him and pay the full amount, meaning that he costs you very little. There doesnt need to be many successes for this kind of policy to be well worth doing