Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support Fans Focus by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

What Garry Hill says

moordown66

By moordown66
in St. Albans City Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rob_the_Saint Newbie

Rob_the_Saint

Posted
Posted

...interesting there is no mention of contracts.

 

If JG wants my opinion, if it is proved that he (Hakim, not JG) IS officially under contract, hang on to his registration and make 'em pay up big time in January. If he (Hakim again) IS NOT under contract just let him go, not a lot of point hanging onto his registration and paying his wages and the FA will probably fine us not them if we don't release it.

 

A review of internal procedures would also be a good idea to prevent future mishaps of this sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sensible Newbie

Sensible

Posted
Posted

By the sounds of it, as far as the FA are concerned, Hakim wasn't under contract and this is presumably because they never received or have lost a copy of his contract. I don't think that anyone is denying this and Weymouth seem to have e-mails confirming this.

 

Whether he was, in fact, under contract is another matter and the club, the Conference and presumably the player, appear to have copies of the contract.

 

The situation regarding the various telephone conversations which are supposed to have taken place is a little more 'interesting' and presumably what was said cannot be proven. However, it is interesting to note that Weymouth have claimed that certain comments were made in a telephone call by John Moules, the Chief Exectutive of the FA, who is a totally impartial third party, and he has denied making those comments.

 

There is no way that Hakim can play for City again but if we retain his registration and contract, there is no way that we will receive a fee that represents his true value if he is not playing. At the end of the day, we may be forced to sell him to Weymouth at a reduced fee. Hakim will receive his signing on fee, Weymouth may get fined by the FA but none of this benefits City. We have been shafted.

 

I have no faith in the FA after the FA Cup fiasco a few years ago. I am sure that if they feel that their authority has been undermined in any way and procedures have not been followed to the letter, they will not look at this situation favourably. I am not optimistic. We may lose the player and also be fined. I am sure that a signed contract is legally binding whatever the FA may say but would we be able to pursue an expensive case through the courts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nobbythesheep Newbie

nobbythesheep

Posted
Posted

I think we should get rid of Hakim. Let him go to Weymouth and keep the bench warm, and then he'll probably be released from there at the end of the season. He's costing the Saints money for nothing. With the money we save on his wages we should put in a bid for Benyon once the transfer window opens. From our last two games it shows we don't need Hakim, and we certainly don't want anyone at our club who have no loyalty, he should get along with his new manager very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midweeksaint Newbie

Midweeksaint

Posted
Posted

John Gibson's statement on the website says that he is interested to know what City fans think of the "whole saga". Hakim is clearly finished at City and 'we' should let him go. 'Our' view of the contract situation is quite clear, so if 'we' let him go to Weymouth it should be for as much money as possible whilst ensuring they are also penalised by the FA/Conference for their alleged transgressions. Otherwise sell him to someone else for whatever 'we' can get. 'We' should also thank Hakim since Clarkey seems to be reinvigorated up front playing with Benyon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eve Newbie

eve

Posted
Posted

John Gibson wants to know what the fans think so i hope he reads the comments here on fans focus.

Hakim was good for City and should have stayed loyal to the club,his team mates and the fans.

regardless of the contract isssues etc,he is a registered player and as such there are procedures.A chat with Colin to discuss his future would have been better and all this could have been avoided.

If the legal stuff is all in order then i suppose City must pay his wages unless Hakim refuses to attend training,but in the long run we have to let him go.Lets hope City can salvage some financial return and lets look to the future.

The tide is turning,the team look much more settled,even Clarkie is scoring again! Lets hope Benyon can stay,he so clearly wants to play for us.The lads are brilliant,lets all keep behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AFF Newbie

AFF

Posted
Posted

I said somewhere else on here that there's a right way and a wrong way and, on the limited information available in the local press and from the Chairman's quoted comments, I believe that Hakim has done 'it' the wrong way.

 

It would seem that he wants to play full-time football, and to play for the Muff, and, therefore, not to play in the yeller & blue. I would guess that the chances of him crawling out into the centre-circle on his hands and knees before the next home game, or to the away end before the Cambridge match in order to apologise to the other players and the fans are pretty close to zero, whatever any of us may think he should do.

 

It seems to me that best possible outcome would be for the Officials of the two clubs and the player to 'sit down' [apologies for the football-speak, there - football folk never 'arrange a meeting' or 'seek to settle their differences' or 'conduct contract discussions', they always 'sit down', often 'at the end of the day', I believe] and sort out a financial settlement.

 

I assume that the alternative is for the club to continue to pay Hakim's wages until the end of the season, less appropriate fines for absences from training, presumably, until the end of the season when he can join whoever he likes for nothing. A laudable principle, perhaps, but a laudable principle of that kind is likely to bring no more than temporary personal satisfaction.

 

Gibbo will do it his way and he wont take any hints from my soon-to-published book, 'How To Negotiate Huge Deals', but in Chapter 3, I suggest that the references to the hole in Gary Calder's backside is unlikely to encourage a rapid passage towards an approprate backdrop for people to negotiate a settlement of an unfortunate issue in the spirit that should unite all fans of Non League football. That's just a personal view, mind, and I could be wrong.

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wilf Woodend Newbie

Wilf Woodend

Posted
Posted

There has been mention of other clubs looking at Hakim. Can we not give them permission to talk to him with a view to transfer him to a club other than Weymouth? That solves our problem and pulls the rug from under their feet. We gain a fee (or reduced costs)and they are denied a player.

 

Also, how is receiving an anonymous telephone call advising that another teams players contract is not at the FA going through "the right channels"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...