Irving - signs for SK Austria Klagenfurt ( updated )

[Malinga the Swinga]

38 minutes ago, I.T.K said:

 

I did not say Robbie/Hearts are lying, and never have done! 

 

 

Sorry, wasn't referring to you. 

[JimmyCant]

12 hours ago, No Idle Talk said:

 

If you believe in the ability and potential of the player, and you believe that in the next few years he is going to be worth millions of pounds to the club, then yes. Absolutely. Why would you not?

 

Obviously you enter into contract negotiations with the intention of getting him to sign for less than that. But if it becomes a situation where we either make him one of the higher earners at the club or we lose him for peanuts in the summer then yes I would pay him. I think the boy's eye for a pass and his ability to play the killer pass is going to make him a valuable commodity.  

As far as I am aware we have a wage strategy in place which has a basic, a bonus scheme on top and most importantly for a club of our size, a ceiling. The reason for it is three fold 1. the bonus part keeps players hungry to succeed (well it’s supposed to) 2. It keeps the club on a predictable stable even keel 3. Not having huge differentials amongst senior players keeps harmony intact.

 

For me, Irvine wouldn’t YET be at the top of the ceiling, however he’s no longer a youth player and he has shown MASSIVE potential. I’d be offering him 75% of the ceiling with the plan to get him to 100% based on performance. If that’s not enough for him you let it sit for a while but ultimately you don’t break your strategy or your ceiling for potential alone. 
 

Thats possibly pretty close to where we are with Andy. He’s got a good and our best offer on the table, he knows there isn’t any more coming (I certainly hope that’s how we’ve dealt with this) and he’s thinking about it. If he comes back looking for a couple of hundred quid here and there and another year, or a year less then there might be room to tinker, but if he’s way above what we’re paying our middle to top guys, nut, we need to let him go

Edited February 2, 2021 by JimmyCant

[jr ewing]

32 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

As far as I am aware we have a wage strategy in place which has a basic, a bonus scheme on top and most importantly for a club of our size, a ceiling. The reason for it is three fold 1. the bonus part keeps players hungry to succeed (well it’s supposed to) 2. It keeps the club on a predictable stable even keel 3. Not having huge differentials amongst senior players keeps harmony intact.

 

For me, Irvine wouldn’t YET be at the top of the ceiling, however he’s no longer a youth player and he has shown MASSIVE potential. I’d be offering him 75% of the ceiling with the plan to get him to 100% based on performance. If that’s not enough for him you let it sit for a while but ultimately you don’t break your strategy or your ceiling for potential alone. 
 

Thats possibly pretty close to where we are with Andy. He’s got a good and our best offer on the table, he knows there isn’t any more coming (I certainly hope that’s how we’ve dealt with this) and he’s thinking about it. If he comes back looking for a couple of hundred quid here and there and another year, or a year less then there might be room to tinker, but if he’s way above what we’re paying our middle to top guys, nut, we need to let him go

A low basic will scupper this deal. 

[JimmyCant]

4 minutes ago, jr ewing said:

A low basic will scupper this deal. 

Depends how low our low basic is I suppose. If he’s near the top of the basic and on good bonuses he’ll be one of the top earners. I like him but I wouldn’t be binning the wage structure for him.

[Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine]

Understand that we have a wage structure in place, and there has been no suggestion that we have offered to make him one of the higher earners, but I would much rather overpay Irving than lose him for nothing.

[Martin_T]

An argument for giving him one our better contracts is that there is perhaps some evidence of transfer fee inflation in the Scottish market, post Brexit.

 

Certainly it would have been difficult to envisage Birmingham City bidding a combined amount of £5 million for two strikers from the Scottish Premiership not so long ago.

[TheBigO]

2 minutes ago, Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine said:

Understand that we have a wage structure in place, and there has been no suggestion that we have offered to make him one of the higher earners, but I would much rather overpay Irving than lose him for nothing.

That's where I'm at. They perhaps don't want to set precedent but 8d be comfortable putting him up there with whatever we've paid Smith and Kingsley.

 

Of course I don't know if we've offered that. He's as important, maybe more so in the grand scheme than those two.

 

I just want it done!!!

[Riccarton3]

If he's not been offered what players like Smith and Kingsley have then it's time to pack it in.

[JimmyCant]

11 minutes ago, Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine said:

Understand that we have a wage structure in place, and there has been no suggestion that we have offered to make him one of the higher earners, but I would much rather overpay Irving than lose him for nothing.

What do the likes of Boyce and Gordon and Naismith and Haring think if you’re going to pay a 20 year old with untapped potential more than your paying solid professional finished article pros ?

[upgotheheads]

51 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

As far as I am aware we have a wage strategy in place which has a basic, a bonus scheme on top and most importantly for a club of our size, a ceiling. The reason for it is three fold 1. the bonus part keeps players hungry to succeed (well it’s supposed to) 2. It keeps the club on a predictable stable even keel 3. Not having huge differentials amongst senior players keeps harmony intact.

 

For me, Irvine wouldn’t YET be at the top of the ceiling, however he’s no longer a youth player and he has shown MASSIVE potential. I’d be offering him 75% of the ceiling with the plan to get him to 100% based on performance. If that’s not enough for him you let it sit for a while but ultimately you don’t break your strategy or your ceiling for potential alone. 
 

Thats possibly pretty close to where we are with Andy. He’s got a good and our best offer on the table, he knows there isn’t any more coming (I certainly hope that’s how we’ve dealt with this) and he’s thinking about it. If he comes back looking for a couple of hundred quid here and there and another year, or a year less then there might be room to tinker, but if he’s way above what we’re paying our middle to top guys, nut, we need to let him go

 

Why would you offer him 75% of the ceiling when he is clearly our most valuable asset (including Craig Gordon imo, who probably has limited sell-on value at his age)? There's more than one way of making a contract, eg by giving him a 5 year contract (or longer) which would lock in his earnings potential and make him financially secure. His ability is not in question, he's getting better and better, the only problem could be fitness or injury, and at some point risks need to be taken. Goodness knows we've risked large sums on dross over the years, it would be galling if we missed out on genuine talent after all of that.

[Pilmuir]

10 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

That's where I'm at. They perhaps don't want to set precedent but 8d be comfortable putting him up there with whatever we've paid Smith and Kingsley.

 

Of course I don't know if we've offered that. He's as important, maybe more so in the grand scheme than those two.

 

I just want it done!!!

He is arguably our best home-grown prospect from the current crop of young players and has sell-on potential, unlike many other signings. So I’d hope his contract offer is comparable with the likes of Smith and Kingsley.

 

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

What do the likes of Boyce and Gordon and Naismith and Haring think if you’re going to pay a 20 year old with untapped potential more than your paying solid professional finished article pros ?

Surely it is for the club to decide. Because someone is valued very highly  it doesn't then provide a catalyst for other players wages to be reviewed

Edited February 2, 2021 by Riccarton3

[upgotheheads]

Just now, JimmyCant said:

What do the likes of Boyce and Gordon and Naismith and Haring think if you’re going to pay a 20 year old with untapped potential more than your paying solid professional finished article pros ?

 

It's the untapped potential that's worth paying for, and the solid professionals are much nearer the end of their careers than the beginning, unlike Irving. It's for that reason that teenagers are bought and sold for millions in other markets. When I was at work we had an incremental system and it took 15 years to get to the top of the grade, but sportspeople aren't civil servants, they have unique talent and the laws of supply and demand apply. 

 

[DS98]

8 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Why would you offer him 75% of the ceiling when he is clearly our most valuable asset (including Craig Gordon imo, who probably has limited sell-on value at his age)? There's more than one way of making a contract, eg by giving him a 5 year contract (or longer) which would lock in his earnings potential and make him financially secure. His ability is not in question, he's getting better and better, the only problem could be fitness or injury, and at some point risks need to be taken. Goodness knows we've risked large sums on dross over the years, it would be galling if we missed out on genuine talent after all of that.

Two words. Harry Cochrane.

[Riccarton3]

3 minutes ago, DS98 said:

Two words. Harry Cochrane.

Are you comparing Irving with Cochrane at this time?

Edited February 2, 2021 by Riccarton3

[upgotheheads]

1 minute ago, DS98 said:

Two words. Harry Cochrane.

 

There's no comparison. HC was 16 when he came through, and had a handful of decent games, anyone could see that he would have been an unacceptable risk. Irving is 4 years older and turns in excellent performances week in week out.

[TheBigO]

5 minutes ago, Pilmuir said:

He is arguably our best home-grown prospect from the current crop of young players and has sell-on potential, unlike many other signings. So I’d hope his contract offer is comparable with the likes of Smith and Kingsley.

 

You'd hope. And longer!

 

I'm no sure it will be is the concern.

 

Look it we make the lad a great offer and he doesn't take it, that's the rub. I just hope the offer is good.

 

[JimmyCant]

6 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

It's the untapped potential that's worth paying for, and the solid professionals are much nearer the end of their careers than the beginning, unlike Irving. It's for that reason that teenagers are bought and sold for millions in other markets. When I was at work we had an incremental system and it took 15 years to get to the top of the grade, but sportspeople aren't civil servants, they have unique talent and the laws of supply and demand apply. 

 

Okay so we offer him a deal based on the potential being realised rather based on 40 games, more than half of which he’s been anonymous in. To my mind he’s played less than 10 decent games and 1 recent outstanding game. You don’t pay potential at the top of your scale. You pay finished articles who are contributing week in week out at the top of your scale. And you definitely don’t pay him more. 

[JimmyCant]

13 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

There's no comparison. HC was 16 when he came through, and had a handful of decent games, anyone could see that he would have been an unacceptable risk. Irving is 4 years older and turns in excellent performances week in week out.

No he just doesn’t. He was shite on Saturday past. He’s been shite quite a lot. Folk going overboard on him because he was mercurial against 10 man Raith Rovers FFS

 

Irving isn’t ready to play first team football at a higher level than Hearts in the SPL. Someone needs to tell him that before he makes a huge mistake by getting ahead of himself, like countless others have done.

Edited February 2, 2021 by JimmyCant

[Riccarton3]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

No he just doesn’t. He was shite on Saturday past. He’s been shite quite a lot. Folk going overboard on him because he was mercurial against 10 man Raith Rovers FFS

But he has nobody in midfield beside him who even gets 3/10

[upgotheheads]

Does anyone actually know how much we're paying players like Naismith, Smith and Boyce? I seem to remember that our average salary was somewhere around £85k, but that would have included a few youngsters on maybe £500 a week, or £25-30k per year. I would be surprised if Naismith isn't on £250k per year. If we paid Irving £200k on a 5 year contract he would be guaranteed £1 million over the contract, but with the likelihood of leaving us after a couple of years for a very big fee. He would be worth that at least.

[upgotheheads]

4 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

No he just doesn’t. He was shite on Saturday past. He’s been shite quite a lot. Folk going overboard on him because he was mercurial against 10 man Raith Rovers FFS

 

Jimmy, I think it  comes down to this, you just don't rate him. I do, but time will tell. We can  bump this thread in a couple of years and then we'll know. I hope I'm around to see it. 

[HoGwash]

21 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

What do the likes of Boyce and Gordon and Naismith and Haring think if you’re going to pay a 20 year old with untapped potential more than your paying solid professional finished article pros ?

At the moment our play to a large extent revolves around Andy Irving. He's the guy who takes the ball from the defence and makes the passes that drive us up the pitch and create chances. I think he's got lots of improvement in him but he's already more than simply potential. In no way would I advocate making him the top earner or breaking our salary cap but he gives as much if not more to the team than for example, Walker, Halliday and Halkett and I think he'd be entitled to expect a salary similar to theirs. He also has added value to Hearts in that he has substantial sell on potential, which the players I used as an example don't have. I'll be hugely disappointed if he goes.

[Riccarton3]

I hate this chat that gives the impression Hearts do things in  a considered, frugal way. Here's an obvious asset, not some aging journeyman, and all of a sudden the biscuit tin is empty

Edited February 2, 2021 by Riccarton3

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

23 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

What do the likes of Boyce and Gordon and Naismith and Haring think if you’re going to pay a 20 year old with untapped potential more than your paying solid professional finished article pros ?

 

As experienced pros, they know exactly why some players get paid more and others less. Irving's star is on the rise and they will have noticed, to paraphrase Robbie Nielson, that he has a 'wand' of a left foot and is getting better every week. Naismith has had has turn of earning big bucks and it will soon be Irving's turn. 

[HoGwash]

1 minute ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

As experienced pros, they know exactly why some players get paid more and others less. Irving's star is on the rise and they will have noticed, to paraphrase Robbie Nielson, that he has a 'wand' of a left foot and is getting better every week. Naismith has had has turn of earning big bucks and it will soon be Irving's turn. 

He's also in the team ahead of Haring.

[JimmyCant]

2 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Jimmy, I think it  comes down to this, you just don't rate him. I do, but time will tell. We can  bump this thread in a couple of years and then we'll know. I hope I'm around to see it. 

Quite the opposite. I do rate him. I think he could get 50 caps. I think he’s worth more to us to keep than sell at the moment, and I have no idea what he’s been offered versus what he is looking for. But the ball is very firmly in his court here. If we’ve offered what we think is the best offer we can make him and it’s not good enough for him, then he goes. 

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

...saving a few bucks now on Irving's salary offer could cost us multi-millions

[Musemic]

Can't get over folk saying he should be on the same wages as Smith and Kingsley (both full internationalists). Also seen others talking about wages of upwards of £1000 per week as if it's an insult to him. Is nobody paying attention here? These guys haven't played in front of any paying customers for 10 months so why are any of them worth that sort of money, let alone a raise? I'm not suggesting Andy should take what HMFC are offering as it's his prerogative to get the best deal he can but I'm beginning to get very p!ssed off with football in general, which seems to think life should just carry on as normal, when it's anything but for most of us

[JimmyCant]

2 minutes ago, HoGwash said:

He's also in the team ahead of Haring.

Sorry but that’s a load of shite. If Haring was 100% fit, Irving probably wouldn’t even be playing

[OTT]

Just now, Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine said:

Understand that we have a wage structure in place, and there has been no suggestion that we have offered to make him one of the higher earners, but I would much rather overpay Irving than lose him for nothing.

 

We'll be entitled to a development fee I believe, but nonetheless, its not good enough. I think it will be incredibly short sighted by the club not to give the lad a deal he can live with. 

 

4 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

I hate this chat that gives the impression Hearts do things in  a considered, frugal way. Here's an obvious asset, not some aging journeyman, and all of a sudden the biscuit tin is empty

 

Absolutely. We want better quality youngsters to come here? Then we need to be seen to be backing the ones we have already. Irving is a clear talent, if his demands are along the lines of parity with the first team then the deal should be done. We should be operating based on merit than experience. Otherwise, why are kids going to want to come here if you get lowballed and then you can't stay in Scotland because no team outside the OF can really afford to pay a development fee? Its ridiculous and I'm going to be really pissed off if we don't get this deal done. 

[JimmyCant]

2 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

...saving a few bucks now on Irving's salary offer could cost us multi-millions

I agree if it’s only a few bucks we’re trying to save. If we are 2 grand a week apart though ?

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, OTT said:

 

We'll be entitled to a development fee I believe, but nonetheless, its not good enough. I think it will be incredibly short sighted by the club not to give the lad a deal he can live with. 

 

 

Absolutely. We want better quality youngsters to come here? Then we need to be seen to be backing the ones we have already. Irving is a clear talent, if his demands are along the lines of parity with the first team then the deal should be done. We should be operating based on merit than experience. Otherwise, why are kids going to want to come here if you get lowballed and then you can't stay in Scotland because no team outside the OF can really afford to pay a development fee? Its ridiculous and I'm going to be really pissed off if we don't get this deal done. 

 

 

What if his demands are above parity with the first team?

[Lone Striker]

12 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

No he just doesn’t. He was shite on Saturday past. He’s been shite quite a lot. Folk going overboard on him because he was mercurial against 10 man Raith Rovers FFS

Your performance marking process for Irving is questionable, JC.    His best is just "decent" .... while his poorest are "sh1te" ?       Out of all the forwards & midfield players, Irving is more often than not the most impressive/consistent  performer  this season.     

 

I'm not saying that should shoot him right up to top earner status, but we have to be realistic about his saleability and what it might mean for the club's financial wellbeing in a year or two's time.

[Riccarton3]

2 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Sorry but that’s a load of shite. If Haring was 100% fit, Irving probably wouldn’t even be playing

Yeah we saw at Dundee. And maybe that is part of the problem. His manager deemed Haring a better option. If I was Irving I'd be wondering about my manager's judgement

[iwasthere1954]

7 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

...saving a few bucks now on Irving's salary offer could cost us multi-millions

Multi millions. I think that's a bit over the top.

[JimmyCant]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Yeah we saw at Dundee. And maybe that is part of the problem. His manager deemed Haring a better option. If I was Irving I'd be wondering about my manager's judgement

Quite possible it’s one of the reasons he doesn’t want to stay. I certainly remember discussion of him not being happy with his game minutes not so long ago. Don’t know if that came direct from him. 
 

There were games earlier in the season where the manager thought Halliday was a better option, and Lee, and White and a half fit Haring.

Edited February 2, 2021 by JimmyCant

[upgotheheads]

2 minutes ago, Musemic said:

Can't get over folk saying he should be on the same wages as Smith and Kingsley (both full internationalists). Also seen others talking about wages of upwards of £1000 per week as if it's an insult to him. Is nobody paying attention here? These guys haven't played in front of any paying customers for 10 months so why are any of them worth that sort of money, let alone a raise? I'm not suggesting Andy should take what HMFC are offering as it's his prerogative to get the best deal he can but I'm beginning to get very p!ssed off with football in general, which seems to think life should just carry on as normal, when it's anything but for most of us

 

I've been pissed off with the money football players get paid ever since Sky etc started pouring billions into it years ago, but we are where we are. I'm pissed-off that singers like Adelle are 'worth' hundreds of millions on the back of a few ok songs, but that's the market place for you. In Irving's case we should be speculating to accumulate, and making money out of the talent we have helped develop rather than leaving others to cash in.

[Juho_Makela_Goal_Machine]

42 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

What do the likes of Boyce and Gordon and Naismith and Haring think if you’re going to pay a 20 year old with untapped potential more than your paying solid professional finished article pros ?

 

Probably fine with it as they're professionals who are one large pay packets themselves. If anything it gives Irving more authority in the dressing room.

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

3 minutes ago, iwasthere1954 said:

Multi millions. I think that's a bit over the top.

 

...so, you think he'll be sold for no more than £1m?

[upgotheheads]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Yeah we saw at Dundee. And maybe that is part of the problem. His manager deemed Haring a better option. If I was Irving I'd be wondering about my manager's judgement

 

Good point. Irving came on and almost pulled us back into that game single handed.

[HoGwash]

11 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Sorry but that’s a load of shite. If Haring was 100% fit, Irving probably wouldn’t even be playing

But he's not 100% fit and although I love Haring he will never command the type of fee that Irving potentially could. I agree with much of what you say but I suspect that the offer that Hearts have made is on the low side. Referring to the point I made previously, without knowing how much they earn, do you think Irving should be offered a salary broadly comparable to the likes of Walker, Halliday and Halkett?

[iwasthere1954]

1 minute ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

...so, you think he'll be sold for no more than £1m?

I would imagine multi millions to be away above what any Scottish player would raise. I don't know what he could be sold for but what's the figure in your mind.

[JimmyCant]

7 minutes ago, HoGwash said:

But he's not 100% fit and although I love Haring he will never command the type of fee that Irving potentially could. I agree with much of what you say but I suspect that the offer that Hearts have made is on the low side. Referring to the point I made previously, without knowing how much they earn, do you think Irving should be offered a salary broadly comparable to the likes of Walker, Halliday and Halkett?

Yes is the short answer, but no one except the fake ITK mob knows what he’s been offered and how that compares with the players you named. Whatever they are on, is the ballpark he should be on.

 

There are people on this forum  muddying the waters about what Irving may or may not have been offered. Feck knows what they are trying to achieve by doing that. one in particular needs help after the counter productive garbage he posted yesterday 

Edited February 2, 2021 by JimmyCant

[OTT]

12 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

What if his demands are above parity with the first team?

 

Then we've done our best. I'm not advocating throwing money at players, we still have to have a line. 

 

 

[Riccarton3]

4 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

 

Good point. Irving came on and almost pulled us back into that game single handed.

This is where you hope Irving believes Neilson gets it. Because decisions like that do not help. And may convince Irving  that Neilson's mentality is to go what he considers safe before actually creative players. It's another angle but not one that can be dismissed out of hand

[scott herbertson]

2 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

Then we've done our best. I'm not advocating throwing money at players, we still have to have a line. 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

I agree - let's hope the demands and what we are offering are not far apart. He's clearly a quality player we would all like to see develop at Hearts.

[Diadora Van Basten]

9 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

As experienced pros, they know exactly why some players get paid more and others less. Irving's star is on the rise and they will have noticed, to paraphrase Robbie Nielson, that he has a 'wand' of a left foot and is getting better every week. Naismith has had has turn of earning big bucks and it will soon be Irving's turn. 

I would add that experienced pros want to play with good players. I would imagine they would applaud the club for trying to keep good young players rather than throwing money at players like Damour, Martins etc.

[Riccarton3]

17 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

What if his demands are above parity with the first team?

What should the club do if they unearth an absolute genius. A Scottish Messi. Pay him no more than the rest? The model needs to have flex if it is a model designed to maximise income from an academy

[JimmyCant]

11 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

What should the club do if they unearth an absolute genius. A Scottish Messi. Pay him no more than the rest? The model needs to have flex if it is a model designed to maximise income from an academy

We’d pay him what we can afford and make sure there is a sell on clause when we sell him for as much as we can get, like we’re clearly trying do with Irving.

 

We don’t have the resources to pay a ‘genius’ 8k, 12k, 20k a week. Any genius we raise isn’t going to be with us very long. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by JimmyCant