Conor Gallagher - Going to Athletico (p81)

billysboots said:

SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ?  Whoever they are

Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.

It wasn't  the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.

I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)

stonemuse said:

PragueAddick said:

billysboots said:

SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ?  Whoever they are

Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.

It wasn't  the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.

I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)

So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees. 

Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".

PragueAddick said:

stonemuse said:

PragueAddick said:

billysboots said:

SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ?  Whoever they are

Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.

It wasn't  the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.

I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)

So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees. 

Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".

I know Gallagher is only young but I wish footballer's would remember that an agent is their employee, not their boss. 

(I use the word 'employee' in the loosest possible sense, I actually mean parasite).

PragueAddick said:

stonemuse said:

PragueAddick said:

billysboots said:

SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ?  Whoever they are

Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.

It wasn't  the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.

I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)

So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees. 

Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".

Missed It said:

PragueAddick said:

stonemuse said:

PragueAddick said:

billysboots said:

SLP saying that the understand it was his representatives that pushed for the move ?  Whoever they are

Glad that they have said that, because its exactly what I was told last night , but was hesitating to post about. Not from “a bloke in the pub,” obvs, given where I live.

It wasn't  the recco or fault of the Chelsea loan player managers whom I was taking the piss out of earlier in the week, so FWIW i apologise to Tore Andre Flo who is the particular guy assigned to Gallagher. Apparently he was at SL 3 weeks earlier and when asked if Chelsea would recall him, said “ why would we do that?” . So thats why we were blindsided and therefore I dont think that, given this info, the criticism of Gallen for not checking ( made by a very esteemed poster) is fair.

I’ve got a lot more detail too but should probably sit on it. One thing thats Ok to post is that our loan contract had a clause that penalised us if we had not played him sufficiently, and this is apparently pretty standard. Another reason to doubt that “ wearing him out” was the reason for recall, (and TBF, I was worried about that myself -But of course it didnt worry Chelsea’s supposed sub-contractor Steve Cooper.)

So basically his representatives were concerned that as he was in a bottom of the table battle, he might get injured and cost them the millions they hope to make in fees. 

Representative, singular. Basically a cannier, better connected, more experienced version of Bonne's agent. Although having said that if Transfermarkt is accurate, while Conor is with a bigger outfit than Bonne's nobody, it's noticeable that he is rated as 3rd most valuable in their list, and by summer, will be far and away their most valuable. Another reason why they need to cash in quickly before some players tell Conor he should sign up with someone "better".

I know Gallagher is only young but I wish footballer's would remember that an agent is their employee, not their boss. 

(I use the word 'employee' in the loosest possible sense, I actually mean parasite).

Much better in the pre-agent era when players were completely controlled by their clubs. 

@Addick Addict. Nobody denies that Charlton knew perfectly well he had a recall clause, which could be activated. The issue is that we went into the window believing that Chelsea would not activate it. That was not a blind hope. Both Flo and Cudicini had been to the training ground, most recently during December, and Flo had been asked and gave an answer which basically treated the idea of a recall as irrational based on the criteria Chelsea had set out when they lent him to us.

The issue is that half way through the window all that suddenly changed and we got shafted. Why, and how? Agent. An agent, who, it turns out has a stable of nobodies in his portfolio. This agent persuaded somebody at Chelsea - but not, apparently the football pros - that this was a good idea. That is what stinks. 

As I have said before, if something happens which doesnt appear to make a lot of sense, follow the money, and there you will find an agent. Such as, why on earth was there no counter-offer when we sold Gomez to Liverpool for such a pitiful amount.? Another Lifer rumbled that one.

@se9addick has a sort of a point that players need protection from the exploitative elements which can be found in Club boardrooms but it has gone too far the other way. Too may useless bottom-feeders are making ridiculous money as “agents” and they need to be reined in. It appears that our new Chairman agrees, even if he might not put it in those terms.

DOUCHER said:

personally i think we like to blame the agents for everything and its convenient for us, the clubs and the fans to do that - they work for and are instructed by the players - i reckon he was tired of carrying this team over the last few months and wasn't convinced that was about to change very soon 

While I am one of the most vociferous critics of agents, and will continue to be, until their practices are regulated, the information I have was provided by an authoritative source, and actually wasn't the main topic of the conversation we had. That source would also assure you that your reckoning is wide of the mark on this occasion - but it was already debunked by the Talksport reporter covering the move.

Since then the SLP has also referred to the key role agent, and I don't think that they spoke to the same person as I did.

killerandflash said:

Maybe if we had brought in a couple of decent signings early doors in the window, and the likes of Lyle and Jonny had been back earlier, he might have stayed?

Sounds good to me.

2121 said:

Tbh conor has proven (to me) he will give his all in a losing team. Consistently our best player and we relied on him quite a lot imo. Even made the national under 21s and scored. 

Now they want him to prove himself in a promotion race. Good move for chelsea and him. Already with one assist and a sure starter. Case closed. 

If you say so

The Prince-e-Paul said:

No hard feelings against Conor. He was never our player only a visitor who was a welcome guest and behaved impeccably. His reputation went far and wide so he's gone elsewhere at his own choosing. To blame agents seems misguided as they work for the player, not the other way around. People complain about estate agents but they are simply carrying out the sellers instruction's. Connor probably realised he'd maxed out his stock value at the Valley so cashed his chips and put them on another higher value option. Sad s have said if he does well on the run in with a proton chasing team this will add more profile and ultimately money to him. Players are now like mini busineses and they are all trying to max their value. Gone are the days of the likes of Steve Bull staying at a second tier club their whole career despite having ability to play at a higher level. As Bowyer would say "it is what it is"

If only that were true. They take money from both sides, and anyone else who gets involved. For a rare example of this which is out in the daylight, why don't you read up on the Willie McKay dynasty and their role in the tragic Emiliano Sala affair.

Whether most of them work in the long -term interest of their player clients is anyway highly disputable. If their best fees come as a result of a transaction, it is obviously in their financial interests to engineer as many transactions as possible. I bet Radostin Kishishev's agent was a bit frustrated, maybe Sergio Aguero's too, although in the latter case I am sure his agents have other revenues such as "image rights management" and other such bollocks.

Anyway, I repeat, neither I nor the SLP dreamed up the story of Gallagher's agent's role ourselves.

PragueAddick said:

@Addick Addict. Nobody denies that Charlton knew perfectly well he had a recall clause, which could be activated. The issue is that we went into the window believing that Chelsea would not activate it. That was not a blind hope. Both Flo and Cudicini had been to the training ground, most recently during December, and Flo had been asked and gave an answer which basically treated the idea of a recall as irrational based on the criteria Chelsea had set out when they lent him to us.

The issue is that half way through the window all that suddenly changed and we got shafted. Why, and how? Agent. An agent, who, it turns out has a stable of nobodies in his portfolio. This agent persuaded somebody at Chelsea - but not, apparently the football pros - that this was a good idea. That is what stinks. 

As I have said before, if something happens which doesnt appear to make a lot of sense, follow the money, and there you will find an agent. Such as, why on earth was there no counter-offer when we sold Gomez to Liverpool for such a pitiful amount.? Another Lifer rumbled that one.

@se9addick has a sort of a point that players need protection from the exploitative elements which can be found in Club boardrooms but it has gone too far the other way. Too may useless bottom-feeders are making ridiculous money as “agents” and they need to be reined in. It appears that our new Chairman agrees, even if he might not put it in those terms.

I am not doubting that money is the evil which drives the game. When we were in the old 3rd Division trying to survive on crowds of 5,000 to 6,000 the gap between us and Division 1 was massive and insurmountable. 

Chelsea have left us with 16 days to get a replacement for Gallagher and we've now had 19 days (and probably more given that we wouldn't have started looking on 1st January) to sign any number of players but, as yet, only one new one has materialised to date. In addition, most of the deals are done in the last 48 hours of the window for the very reason that clubs have to shift players out in order to fund or allow new ones to come in. 

Gallagher and Chelsea aren't responsible for the situation we are in. It is the previous regime, injuries and seeming reluctance of at least one of our targets to join us that we are where we are.

vff said:

Conor Gallagher had a very good assist for an equaliser. He appeared to be playing much further up the pitch, just behind the strikers.

Exactly where he was so effective for us before Cullen for injured