Brandon Hanlan | Page 10 | Vital Football

Brandon Hanlan

madrid_gill said:
The trouble is, we can't really sign another forward all the time the offer to Hanlan is on the table. Otherwise we could end up signing someone, and then Hanlan also decides to stay, and we end up over budget. Or we sign someone who we could still afford, even in the event that Hanlan does sign, in which case we'd presumably be looking at a lower quality of player than we could potentially get if Hanlan leaves.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you`re saying. But we don`t know the details of what has been offered or any other conditions said offer involves. PDS is not daft and has probably faced similar situations in the past - I wouldn`t rule out the situation being well weighted in favour of GFC.
 
As far as I know he wants to go but no club has offered an acceptable fee hence the stalemate.
 
Two months without pay, it must be starting to hurt now. Even if he is living at home with his parents it can't be easy.
 
chris who said:
Surely that is exactly what the other club in the mix to sign Hanlan want.
Click to expand...

Who cares what the other mystery club wants? Whether or not we continue to offer him a contract should be on the basis of what is best for Gillingham FC.

If he wanted to play for Gillingham then he would have signed a contract by now. If we leave the contract on the table in the hope to get a fee and he ultimately signs it in October when the window is about to shut then we'll have a player on our books who doesn't really want to be here.

I'd rather we withdraw the offer by next weekend if he doesn't sign and then focus to bring in a replacement who wants to be here.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
Who cares what the other mystery club wants? Whether or not we continue to offer him a contract should be on the basis of what is best for Gillingham FC.

If he wanted to play for Gillingham then he would have signed a contract by now. If we leave the contract on the table in the hope to get a fee and he ultimately signs it in October when the window is about to shut then we'll have a player on our books who doesn't really want to be here.

I'd rather we withdraw the offer by next weekend if he doesn't sign and then focus to bring in a replacement who wants to be here.
Click to expand...
This is about getting a fee not just for Hanlan but for every other young player. Let Hanlan walk and maybe it will be Tucker next time having one players wages in the bank is no bad thing at this moment.i suspect that it might be settled soon anyway.
 
chris who said:
This is about getting a fee not just for Hanlan but for every other young player. Let Hanlan walk and maybe it will be Tucker next time
Click to expand...

And if we find ourselves in a similar position with Tucker in 3 years time then how we should react should be on the merit of the circumstances at the time. If Tucker ends up as being as good as early appearances suggest then I suspect we'll quickly agree a deal as per Dack.

Using Dack as a comparison, he was a player who had spent years going through our youth system and was clearly a Championship player playing in league one. In the event of his contract running out, there were likely to be multiple clubs all keen to sign him. Hence it would be clear holding our ground would be benefitable. It was obvious that if a fee wasn't agreed then we'd get a significant amount of money via a tribunal.

Meanwhile Hanlan is someone who is an ok league one player who is considered talented but is not the finished article, especially in the shooting department. The only seeming interest is another club asking roughly how much would he cost and then walking away when our asking price was seemingly more than what they thought he was worth. Any fee we get via a tribunal is likely to be insignificant as he has only spent the last couple of years at the club and he is only an average league one player. There is no point in offering a contract to get a fee when there aren't any teams racing to try and sign him.

In essence you should look for a tribunal fee for players you'd struggle to replace but not play around with average players who are easily replaceable.

If Tucker's contract runs out and there is a load of interest in him then we should offer a contract and try to get a fee. If Tucker's development stalls and there is only a smattering of rumours and gossip about a team no better than us might be looking at him then maybe we should set a deadline for any new contract to be signed.

edit: changed the tense of a few things
 
Last edited:
Dack wasn’t out of contract
He was sold for £750 k plus add ons plus a kickback if he is sold on for profit.
Totally different scenario.
 
I suspect it all comes down to Hanlan being advised badly. Didn't SE imply that was the case?

If any club has been in direct contact with him (Pompey or other), he needs to tell them that he can not do without pay indefinitely so if they really want him they should put up or shut up.
 
shotshy said:
Dack wasn’t out of contract
He was sold for £750 k plus add ons plus a kickback if he is sold on for profit.
Totally different scenario.
Click to expand...

I totally didn't go back and rephrase a few things in that post :whist:

I probably should have used John Egan is an example but didn't as I was an idiot.
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
In essence you should look for a tribunal fee for players you'd struggle to replace but not play around with average players who are easily replaceable.
Click to expand...

Maybe that suggests that Evans considers Hanlan an important player, and not easily replaceable. He's certainly being far more patient than most of us would've expected in such a situation.
 
madrid_gill said:
Maybe that suggests that Evans considers Hanlan an important player, and not easily replaceable. He's certainly being far more patient than most of us would've expected in such a situation.
Click to expand...
You could well be right Madrid.
Maybe it’s a case of better the devil you know.
He knows in advance exactly what Hanlan brings to the party, both good and bad.
There will be no surprises if he signs whereas it’s always a punt with a new player.
 
jimbogills said:
I really hope he doesn't sign now. This whole thing has dragged on too long and he obviously doesn't want to be here. I don't want someone 'settling' for my club.
Click to expand...
I remember Joe Martin doing the same years back.
He ended up signing a one year when he couldn’t do better.
 
It seems Hanlan's agent is advising him to hang on and he will get him a better deal, as his agent could get more a move than just signing an identical contract with us. Though time is running out, the longer this goes on the better the chance he will sign for us. I don't blame him for trying to get a better deal. It is a job he doesn't have to be a fan.
 
Agents have a obligation to get the best deal for players if that involves moves that fans may not like that’s not the players fault.
 
sunnyinkent said:
Agents have a obligation to get the best deal for players if that involves moves that fans may not like that’s not the players fault.
Click to expand...

They also have an obligation to their own business to generate a fee, which may or may not involve moving the player to a different club.
 
sunnyinkent said:
Agents have a obligation to get the best deal for players if that involves moves that fans may not like that’s not the players fault.
Click to expand...

However the best deal for a player isn’t just always about a weekly wage.

Unless a move would drastically improve BH money it would surely be a better ‘deal’ to stick at a club where he is settled, playing for a manager who seriously rates him and picked him in 90% of games last season, and regularly bigs him up. And is building a side in which he sees BH as a part of.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the agent has one eye on any signing on fee that may get paid to Brandon if he signed elsewhere.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.