Walsall boss, Dean Smith, has used his pre-match interview with the Walsall Advertiser to repeat what is turning into a very dull sound bite – namely that his club have not been paid yet for last season’s leading striker Will Grigg.
Smith told the Advertiser: “We’re playing against a club with one of the biggest budgets in the league and they now boast two of the top scorers in the league from last season, albeit they’ve not paid for one of them yet!”
If Smith, who played for Walsall himself between 1989-1994, is getting so tired of this situation, perhaps he should convince his bosses to lower their valuation of Grigg. I cannot recall the last time two League One teams exchanged a player for a seven figure sum, let alone one who’s contract had lapsed for £1m plus – they’ll be lucky to get half that in my opinion – with £350,000 being more likely according to those ‘in the know’.
We believe that Brentford and Doncaster Rovers settled the Harry Forrester ‘conflict of valuations’ by being realistic and with a shared desire not to drag things out by taking the issue to a tribunal. If Walsall insists on going that route and not bartering to establish a realistic figure, then what does Smith expect?
I am sure Uwe Rosler and Mathew Benham also have one eye on the Clayton Donaldson situation in light of Grigg’s saga – the Bees striker is out of contract next summer, a situation that is already prompting transfer speculation. If the Bees want to avoid being stung again they either need to settle any contract issues sooner rather than later, or consider selling Clayton. Bees fans have huge respect for Donaldson, but sooner or later, his situation will need to be settled either one way or the other.
Dave Lane
i think that smith is brassed off with the way grigg done his business and the way brentford went about it, grigg was a home grown talent and in my opinion still getting better and will only grow in value. your comment about smiths dull sound bite is a biased view as any manager would be a bit brassed off with a player walking to a rival club and not having any funds for him until after a playing the said club. can only wish the best deal for both clubs but when you poach youth player you need to see the full future capabilities of the player to give a correct value not a biased one of getting on the cheap.
I thought Grigg stared at Brum? We lost Forrester in a similar fashion but Uwe didn’t bleat on about every week and its WFCs decision not to settle on a fee that’s why you’ve not been paid for the player.
Grigg joined us at the age of 16, making his debut at 18. We didn’t get him ‘as was’ from Brum, we spent 5 years developing and nuturing him.
You can’t compare him to Harry Forrester at all, you had Forrester for 18 months from the age of 20, already well developed.
In fairness. Do you not think it a little unfair that he is playing against us when you haven’t even paid for him, not only that, the FA won’t schedule the tribunal until AFTER the deadline meaning any funds we get are pointless.
However your argument that we should just sell him cheap to speed the process is up is ridiculous. We are talking about a lad that we’ve taken from a rejected 16 year old and developed into a 20 goal League 1 striker with International Caps to his name. A lad that we offered a club record 4 year deal to that would have made him the highest paid League 1 player we’ve ever had. A lad that will only get better as he gets more experience… And you think we should sell him cheap.
From what I hear, you’re offering £150k. Maybe if you were being realistic and putting £350-£400k + knock-ons on the table, then we’d probably settle. However, if you’re playing silly games, then it is only just that we play silly games too.
Pretty sure if the boot was on the other foot, you’d have a very different opinion.
“I cannot recall the last time two League One teams exchanged a player for a seven figure sum”? I can give you one off the top of my head straight away. Lambert from Bristol Rovers (actually in the fourth tier at the time) to Southampton (just relegated to the third tier) FOUR years ago for over a million. I believe prices have inflated since as well.
So not between two L1 clubs then 😉 Also was it a tribunal set fee between two similar sized clubs for an out of contract player or were Southampton using parachute payment pounds from being in the Premiership? As we said in the article, half Walsall’s valuation seems at the high end if realistic according to those in the know. As fans we all want what’s best for our own clubs obviously.
Suppose you wouldn’t count what Posh, in our Division, paid for Assombalonga either, as he came from the Championship? It “smashed” their 1.1 million record, by the way. Just get your sugar daddy to pay a proper price for his players.
If the quest is to find a player transferred between two L1 or third tier clubs then clearly Assombalonga is not a fit either. RE our sugar daddy, perhaps you should write to BFC and ask him to pay, nothing we can do apart from express our opinion, really can’t see why some are getting so huffy.
Chris, I am positive that the tribunal will take the two teams’ league status into account in some respect, it looks into every aspect… Troy Deeney went to Watford, a Championship team, with recent Premiership pedigree. It’s not quite the same is it?
As fans we all want what’s best for our club? Here you are whining about the transfer of a player and pushing the fake argument that because both clubs are in league one the player in question is worth stuff all.
The real argument is the relative bargaining power of both sides, otherwise Grigg would still be playing for Walsall. Stay on your knees facing your sugar daddy, because the moment he blows your face will be a picture.
Now pay up, you greedy robdogs. Stop trying to rip us off you arrogant Wayne Anchors.
Ironically the story is about your manager whining… We are not unhappy with the situation. If you read it properly we are saying that those in the know are suggesting a fee of under half Walsall’s valuation, not ‘stuff all’. It is your clubs decision to risk it at tribunal at the end of the day as it was to allow his contract to expire.
Ironically your story missed the point. He’s under 24, product of our youth, is highly valued and was offered one of the biggest contracts ever to stay with Walsall. I’d say the fact you paid him more suggests you value him more highly.
Brentford chose to gamble at tribunal by insulting Walsall with a derisory offer. Best of luck.
Seems you have selective reading… How are we missing the point of him being under 24 when we have drawn a direct comparison to Harry Forrester who was in the same age bracket and was just as highly rated?
Selective reading. Does that apply to the comment thread too? See above comment from Saddler, who is just another football fan better informed than you.
Not at all… nobody is suggesting you sell him cheap, but it is our opinion that by expecting for over £1m Walsall stand no chance of resolving this quickly. You obviously want the most ££ for your ex player that is natural, but we are trying to be realistic, hence the comment that we expect a tribunal to settle on a fee less than half £1m, with the probable outcome being around £350k. What’s so outrageous about that? Chill pill lads.
Not sure what the league status of the buying club as to do with the price.
If you want a comparison we received £500,000 for Troy Deeney 3 years ago.
He had spent 4 years at Walsall compared to Griggs 6, and his goals to game ratio was lower than Grigg’s, both of which should be taken into account by a tribunal.
Therefore I would suspect the person ‘in the know’ quoting £350,000 is linked to Brentford and as a vested interest.
That isn’t a comparison though, because Deeney was in contract. Grigg isn’t.
Do you lot understand the difference between a ‘transfer fee’ and ‘compensation’?
depends. We’ll tell you if you can tell us the difference between ‘derisory offer for current international with 20 goals last season’ and ‘Brentford’s estimate for the talented outcome of six years in a proven youth academy who they offered far more than the reluctant selling club could’.
You obviously fail to understand he’s only with you because we couldn’t match your offer. As we’ve invested years developing the lad it’s only fair we get repaid by people who can afford to poach our prospects the moment they reach maturity. That’ll be you.
Will Grigg left Walsall because he wanted to. Whether that be a new challenge, a better team, to live in London, to get away from Walsall, because he or his agent wanted a pay day… Whatever. He was out if contract… He refused to sign for you. He wanted to leave. That’s not poaching, that’s a fact if life. He’d tired of you, as we are of you.