Sidwell - Now the dust begins to settle...

Crowthorne Royal · by **Crowthorne Royal** » 15 May 2007 08:21

My fellow Royals,

Having watched Sky Sports News last night and seen the obvious speculation about Sidwell and where he is going, I couldn't help but feel hugely disappointed. I may be being harsh but could we not (as a club) have handled this situation better ? To see a Â£5m+ player just walk out of The Mad Stad feels so wrong and especially to Chelsea! The one club that could afford Â£m's for Sidwell if pushed. Some may argue the money we get for staying in The Prem makes up for the loss, but does it ? Can anyone confirm how much physical cash we actually get ? The only money I've seen so far is the approx Â£7m prize money for 8th place.

RoyalBlue · by **RoyalBlue** » 15 May 2007 08:31

If any mistake was made, it was made well over a season ago in not offering him a new, good & extended contract at that point. However, I think that was back in the days when the club insisted that they didn't talk about contracts until the last year of the existing deal.

Personally, once we got into the last 12 months I suspect there was very little the club could do to secure his signature and I'm just really pleased that they resisted the temptation to cash in and sell him whilst he still had some value. That certainly wouldn't have happened a few years ago.

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 15 May 2007 08:38

The best financially we could have got for Sidwell was Â£2.5m or so last summer. I personally feel that we would have finished a few places lower down the division without him, we would still have been comfortable in say 11th or 12th.

The difference between those positions is about Â£1.5-Â£2m - add to that the fact that around 40% of any transfer fee would have gone to Arsenal and it made perfect sense to keep him for this final season.

cmonurz · by **cmonurz** » 15 May 2007 08:39

Have to agree with RoyalBlue. Once we got to August and Sidwell had not put pen to paper, his exit was all but secured. Reading's mistake was refusing to extend it's offer through Â£25k per week that probably would have secured Sidwell's signature.

Imho, we will not get a player of Sidwell's calibre in replacement for a lower wage than that anyway.

Blue Blood · by **Blue Blood** » 15 May 2007 08:41

I think the club handled it pretty well, we needed him this season so could not cash in but who was going to pay anyway knowing he was a free agent at season end? We had him on contract for a certain period, end of. We do not own him.
Your money figure is prize money, you forget TV money which I think is Â£30m+

jelly · by **jelly** » 15 May 2007 08:42

Think the club did the right thing it is not just the 7m prize money. There also is the tv cash, beter Sponsorship deals for staying up. The club can allso charge us more for match tickets more shirts being sold by the club shop. the list goes on. So i do not think it would of been worth selling sidwell for 4.5m in January

Blue Blood · by **Blue Blood** » 15 May 2007 08:43

cmonurz Imho, we will not get a player of Sidwell's calibre in replacement for a lower wage than that anyway.

Imho we have one already.........Gunnarsson

Stranded · by **Stranded** » 15 May 2007 08:45

Blue Blood
cmonurz Imho, we will not get a player of Sidwell's calibre in replacement for a lower wage than that anyway.

Imho we have one already.........Gunnarsson

Cannot agree there. Whilst I think he is quality in short burst ie 2/3 games I don't think he will be able to do it over a prolonged period of time. I for one will be disappointed and a bit worried if our starting midfield for next season is Gunnarsson and Harper.

Slightly Hungover · by **Slightly Hungover** » 15 May 2007 08:49

Given that his contract negotiations were so well publicised, I think it would have been very difficult for the club to have agreed to excessive wage demands without causing unrest amongst the rest of the squad.

The fact that everyone else has signed up on long contracts with no problem suggests we're not poor payers, so it might be that Sidwell's decision is not just about money.

noise · by **noise** » 15 May 2007 08:50

Blue Blood
cmonurz Imho, we will not get a player of Sidwell's calibre in replacement for a lower wage than that anyway.

Imho we have one already.........Gunnarsson

spot on

Slightly Hungover · by **Slightly Hungover** » 15 May 2007 09:03

It's interesting that Gunnarsson scored just as many goals as Sidders this season in just a fraction of the appearances...

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 15 May 2007 09:08

I can't criticise the club's stance on this.

If they'd paid Sidders what he demanded, then the wages for the other players would have needed to go up too, so it would have cost a lot more than just the extra we'd be paying him. No-one is bigger than the club.

And yes, we would have got more a season ago, but we needed him to play this season - what would you rather have for our first season in the Prem? Sidders out there showing how good he is or Â£2.5M in the bank at a time when we couldn't get players to join us?

Even more so because (as pointed out) 40% would go to Arsenal. And let's not forget also, that because Sidders didn't sign the new contract, he was on about Â£8 K a week less than he wold have been on the new contract. That's another Â£400K saved to set against this mythical Â£2.5M minus 40%.

Nope, Coppell and Hammond have got it spot on - and fair play to Sidders for giving it his all this season, too.

nivek elyod · by **nivek elyod** » 15 May 2007 09:09

What's puzzling me is why he wanted to leave (apart from money). We have shown ourselves to be the 8th best team in the best league in the world, he has been a major part of that, and yet still he wants to leave. Strange...

Dirk Gently · by **Dirk Gently** » 15 May 2007 09:12

nivek elyod What's puzzling me is why he wanted to leave (apart from money). We have shown ourselves to be the 8th best team in the best league in the world, he has been a major part of that, and yet still he wants to leave. Strange...

He has a wife and child to support....

But in the "arms race" of football prestige and football agents, it's not how successful the team is, it's who you play for, and there's a definite pecking order. Players and especially their agents know that better than anyone.

papereyes · by **papereyes** » 15 May 2007 09:12

And yes, we would have got more a season ago, but we needed him to play this season - what would you rather have for our first season in the Prem? Sidders out there showing how good he is or Â£2.5M in the bank at a time when we couldn't get players to join us?

In hindsight, that equation has an obvious solution.

I still think we'll struggle to replace him for next season and that will be a key factor in whether we struggle or not.

Behindu · by **Behindu** » 15 May 2007 09:34

First of all the 'myth' of the club not offering new deals. For ages the club have had players they want to keep tied in to long term contracts, and if they let a player run his deal down it is usally becasue the future of the player in in doubt anyway. There aren;t too many examples of players doing what Sidwell has done and sitting it out to become a free agent, or players walking and going on to success elsewhere.

I think Sidwell worked out his strategy a long time ago, he took a bit of a gamble on his ability to have one decent season at this level knowing that if he did he would have plenty of clubs offering him new deals. Unless the club had offered him a big deal 18 months (when weweren't sure of promotion) he might have gone for it, but even then I'm not sure.

It's a feature of life after Bosman, and probably the first time we've suffered from it. We need to see that more and more you sign a player for a fixed term and at the end he leaves. The fee covers his services for that time. In many ways 'transfer' fees are crazy, they don't happen in other professions and why they should happen in football I don;t really understand.

aaronrfc · by **aaronrfc** » 15 May 2007 09:40

Dirk Gently I can't criticise the club's stance on this.

If they'd paid Sidders what he demanded, then the wages for the other players would have needed to go up too, so it would have cost a lot more than just the extra we'd be paying him. No-one is bigger than the club.

And yes, we would have got more a season ago, but we needed him to play this season - what would you rather have for our first season in the Prem? Sidders out there showing how good he is or Â£2.5M in the bank at a time when we couldn't get players to join us?

Even more so because (as pointed out) 40% would go to Arsenal. And let's not forget also, that because Sidders didn't sign the new contract, he was on about Â£8 K a week less than he wold have been on the new contract. That's another Â£400K saved to set against this mythical Â£2.5M minus 40%.

Nope, Coppell and Hammond have got it spot on - and fair play to Sidders for giving it his all this season, too.

spot on that man. couldn't agree more

cmonurz · by **cmonurz** » 15 May 2007 09:54

Just to back up my earlier point really - what's gone is gone and the reality of the situation is that realistically, at the start of next season we will either have a) a lesser replacement to Sidwell at a lower cost or b) an equal or better replacement for Sidwell at a higher cost (that what we might have offered Sidders last year).

We will not get a midfielder of the quality of Sidwell for less than Â£40k per week.

Yorkshire Royal · by **Yorkshire Royal** » 15 May 2007 09:56

This just goes to show you can never have too many threads about Steve Sidwell.. What are we going to do next season?

Royalee · by **Royalee** » 15 May 2007 10:08

I don't think it matters what the club would have done as his wife appears to be an utter moron and would have tried to persuade him to move on no matter what. It's a shame because he's done supberbly for us over the last few years, but there you go.

Sidwell - Now the dust begins to settle...

Sidwell - Now the dust begins to settle...

Who is online