Were we right to sell Cummings

[wookie70]

I just had a look at the SPFL Prize money for this season. The difference is around £600K between 4th and 2nd spot. I think Motherwell have been very brave with Moult and are looking likely to get around half a million, are sitting in a good position in the league after a cup final appearance. I think they made the right decision to keep him as his goals have made a huge difference to their start to the season.

So were we right to sell Cummings or should we have kept him. If reports are correct we got £500K for him less that that difference between 2nd and 4th place in teh league. I genuinely think Cummings would be anywhere between 10 and 15 goals given the huge amount of chances we have created and those goals could easily see us being in second place and looking to stay there. I know its an ifs and buts debate but with SJM we need to think about whether there is actually a net profit to be made on some players. In my head we made a poor decision letting Cummings go for so little but understand that there may have been a contractual or gentleman's agreement.

[DarlingtonHibee]

I'm no finance expert but it looks like the £500k was a first payment, in the accounts it looks like there is another payment due.

[Since90+2]

I just had a look at the SPFL Prize money for this season. The difference is around £600K between 4th and 2nd spot. I think Motherwell have been very brave with Moult and are looking likely to get around half a million, are sitting in a good position in the league after a cup final appearance. I think they made the right decision to keep him as his goals have made a huge difference to their start to the season.

So were we right to sell Cummings or should we have kept him. If reports are correct we got £500K for him less that that difference between 2nd and 4th place in teh league. I genuinely think Cummings would be anywhere between 10 and 15 goals given the huge amount of chances we have created and those goals could easily see us being in second place and looking to stay there. I know its an ifs and buts debate but with SJM we need to think about whether there is actually a net profit to be made on some players. In my head we made a poor decision letting Cummings go for so little but understand that there may have been a contractual or gentleman's agreement.

He wanted to leave. No point in keeping an unhappy player.

[Onion]

Bottom line is of a player wants to move on, there's little you can do. Cummings outgrew Hibs, his stock was high and the time was right. Our problem is we've failed to replace him and have been somewhat spoiled over the last few seasons with Griffiths and then Cummings as natural goal getters.

Need to move on and look to get a striker/poacher in asap.

[greenlex]

We had an agreement with him. He did his bit we did ours so yes we were correct.

[TheGreenMan]

If we didn't get him to sign a new deal summer 2016 whilst agreeing to sell on promotion (plus if release fee met or whatever the agreement was) he would have left before a season in the championship and we'd maybe be comparing different sets of prize money stuck down there. He held all the aces.

[Souter96Mac]

I think Motherwell have put themselves in a bit of danger selling Moult tbh. Other than him, they're an average team. Don't replace his goal, could be struggling.

[HH81]

We had an agreement with him. He did his bit we did ours so yes we were correct.

Anyone who watched the sky show tonight understands why he was allowed to leave. Correct decision.

[Onion]

I think Motherwell have put themselves in a bit of danger selling Moult tbh. Other than him, they're an average team. Don't replace his goal, could be struggling.

And why do you think they had any choice int he matter ? Players and agents are all powerful in football, clubs are at their mercy.

[wookie70]

And why do you think they had any choice int he matter ? Players and agents are all powerful in football, clubs are at their mercy.

They could easily have tried to sell him in the summer but kept hold off him.

[wookie70]

Anyone who watched the sky show tonight understands why he was allowed to leave. Correct decision. As I want give Murdoch a penny could you enlighten us to what Leeann said

[HH81]

As I want give Murdoch a penny could you enlighten us to what Leeann said

In a nutshell it was agreed with Jason if his goals took Hibs to the title they would agree to him moving on. All parties kept to their agreement and he left.

[greenlex]

As I want give Murdoch a penny could you enlighten us to what Leeann said

Stay strong it’ll soon be Mickey Mouse.

[wookie70]

In a nutshell it was agreed with Jason if his goals took Hibs to the title they would agree to him moving on. All parties kept to their agreement and he left.
Fair enough. It will be interesting to see if there are further payment

[snooky]

Timing is everything. The player sold at the worst possible time was GO'C.
Cumdog left at a reasonably opportune time. Good luck to him however, he's now part of our history now. Let's look forward.

[Hi Heid Yin]

It's not a case of being right or wrong re: selling Cummings.
It was about the circumstances surrounding the player and the club at that particular time.
Jason was rewarded financially and professionally - testing himself at a high level in the Engish game.
Hibs were rewarded financially and secured Stokes in the process - a shrewd and satisfying acquisition.

[O'Rourke3]

Moot. The question assumes we had a choice.

[wookie70]

It's not a case of being right or wrong re: selling Cummings.
It was about the circumstances surrounding the player and the club at that particular time.
Jason was rewarded financially and professionally - testing himself at a high level in the Engish game.
Hibs were rewarded financially and secured Stokes in the process - a shrewd and satisfying acquisition.

I wasn't keen on signing Stokes and would hate to think we have spent Jason's fee on Stoke's wages. He has been neither a shrewd or satisfying purchase imo. Time for that to change but I can only see it ending badly. I think the same about Whittaker too, far too old and injury prone to be given a 3 year deal.

I hoped we would spend Jason's fee on up and coming players like Moult or Morgan. Lennon's signing have been poor in general imo but he did well signing Ambrose and I like the look of Barker as a loan. Credit due for Simon Murray too as he was probably signed for the future but has already contributed, more than Stokes this year imo.

[hibby6270]

JC always said he would stay with us until we got promoted. OK - he maybe thought that would be sooner than it was - but at end of the day, he had the confidence, some might say arrogance of youth to think he was a better player than he actually was.

Yes - he did well for us. Very well. The cup win was a bonus for him. But he was always going to move on at some stage. Was the summer just gone the right time though? Time will tell.

Personally think he could have stayed on another season to confirm his ability on a consistent basis at a higher level than the Scottish Championship.

He would have benefitted. The club would have benefitted in 2 ways. His goals for the season and possibly a bigger transfer fee when he eventually did go.

Who knows? It’s all conjecture now. As I said, time will tell.

[Allant1981]

I wasn't keen on signing Stokes and would hate to think we have spent Jason's fee on Stoke's wages. He has been neither a shrewd or satisfying purchase imo. Time for that to change but I can only see it ending badly. I think the same about Whittaker too, far too old and injury prone to be given a 3 year deal.

I hoped we would spend Jason's fee on up and coming players like Moult or Morgan. Lennon's signing have been poor in general imo but he did well signing Ambrose and I like the look of Barker as a loan. Credit due for Simon Murray too as he was probably signed for the future but has already contributed, more than Stokes this year imo.

moult is hardly up and coming, he is 25 or 26 if i remember correctly, the same age as simon murray, stokes has been no where near as poor as a lot of people are making out

[Real Emerald]

I just had a look at the SPFL Prize money for this season. The difference is around £600K between 4th and 2nd spot. I think Motherwell have been very brave with Moult and are looking likely to get around half a million, are sitting in a good position in the league after a cup final appearance. I think they made the right decision to keep him as his goals have made a huge difference to their start to the season.

So were we right to sell Cummings or should we have kept him. If reports are correct we got £500K for him less that that difference between 2nd and 4th place in teh league. I genuinely think Cummings would be anywhere between 10 and 15 goals given the huge amount of chances we have created and those goals could easily see us being in second place and looking to stay there. I know its an ifs and buts debate but with SJM we need to think about whether there is actually a net profit to be made on some players. In my head we made a poor decision letting Cummings go for so little but understand that there may have been a contractual or gentleman's agreement.

Well as I had assumed, LD on on Sky tonight said they persuaded him to stay to get the goals for promotion and would be easy to deal with to let him move on. Not much more you can add really. But yes Hibs did right.

[brog]

No disrespect to the OP but what a silly thread. We took a failed rabid Jambo kid who became a Hibs legend & made a huge contribution to the greatest day in our football lives. Unlike other clubs Hibs actually stand by their commitments to players. We had no choice but to sell JC but our recognised integrity in Jason's transfer will be a positive factor in our efforts to sign other young Scottish players.

[penihibs]

We had an agreement with him. He did his bit we did ours so yes we were correct.

Bang on! he done his bit, legend!! dosent matter what anyone thinks.
If he ends up back at the piggery who really cares? it doesn't get any better than 21/05/16
for us older hibees.
GGTTH.

[jacomo]

Bottom line is of a player wants to move on, there's little you can do. Cummings outgrew Hibs, his stock was high and the time was right. Our problem is we've failed to replace him and have been somewhat spoiled over the last few seasons with Griffiths and then Cummings as natural goal getters.

Need to move on and look to get a striker/poacher in asap.


Stokes is a natural goal scorer... or at least should be.

[jacomo]

No disrespect to the OP but what a silly thread. We took a failed rabid Jambo kid who became a Hibs legend & made a huge contribution to the greatest day in our football lives. Unlike other clubs Hibs actually stand by their commitments to players. We had no choice but to sell JC but our recognised integrity in Jason's transfer will be a positive factor in our efforts to sign other young Scottish players.


:agree:

This is Hibs position in the food chain, unfortunately.

You can only play with the cards you are dealt, and I think we did as well as we could.

[neil7908]

So.... what did we actually get for him? Are we any closer to knowing for sure?

[heidtheba]

The sad reality is that we are a 'stepping stone' club. Cummings came in, played well and earned a bigger money move. Keeping him, as many posters have already said, could have been counter-productive. An unhappy player can play badly AND possibly drag down the team spirit of others. We've done really well with that spirit and it would be detrimental to lose it.

Another thing is this. If we act as a good 'stepping stone' club, bring players on, show an 'if you are good enough, you play' mentality and then cause no issues when the player leaves (other than a fair financial recoup), we could use that to persuade other young hopefuls to come to us. Same with the McGinn situation of having a sell-on fee to St Mirren. Pay that without any stalling and it all serves us well with future possible transfers.

[snooky]

The sad reality is that we are a 'stepping stone' club. Cummings came in, played well and earned a bigger money move. Keeping him, as many posters have already said, could have been counter-productive. An unhappy player can play badly AND possibly drag down the team spirit of others. We've done really well with that spirit and it would be detrimental to lose it.

Another thing is this. If we act as a good 'stepping stone' club, bring players on, show an 'if you are good enough, you play' mentality and then cause no issues when the player leaves (other than a fair financial recoup), we could use that to persuade other young hopefuls to come to us. Same with the McGinn situation of having a sell-on fee to St Mirren. Pay that without any stalling and it all serves us well with future possible transfers.

Actually, we're all stepping stone clubs. Even Barcelona - except the next stepping stone from there is usually on the way down.

[wookie70]

moult is hardly up and coming, he is 25 or 26 if i remember correctly, the same age as simon murray, stokes has been no where near as poor as a lot of people are making out

Up and coming to me is someone whose career is still going places. They are on the way up not on the way down. Moult isn't the greatest of example as he is closer to arriving so his price has now went up but I suspect he may do well and have another upward move after this one.

It can work when players are at the end of their careers but I'd rather sign players who are still improving and have a chance of being worth more when they leave than when they arrive. I'm talking about players who are regularly playing club football and who can play at a higher level or a bigger club. SJM being a prime example. Stokes, Whittaker, Ambrose and Swanson being the opposite type of player. The opposite attract higher wages and will likely attract no fee although potentially Efe could. They to me are a bigger risk as they frequently don't get motivated, particularly for smaller games, and often don't look fit or are injured frequently. If they are approaching 30 and have a history of causing bother there is almost no chance of turning them round and at best you will manage to control them. They can also be a bad influence to youngster who will naturally look up to them.

I would put Simon Murray into the category of up and coming as he has moved from a smaller club to us, is young enough that a good couple of seasons could see him having value on the transfer market and he is someone still hungry to improve not at best stand still. He is an example of as small a risk as you could get in the transfer market: fit, not injury prone, hungry, keen, hard worker, reasonable track record with signs that he could do better and most likely very cheap. A squad player who could break into the team.

Stokes to me looks like he isn't working as hard as he could and hasn't done much in most of the games. His scoring record isn't great and neither is his assist record if the stats are to be believed. Murray, McGinn and Boyle have all scored more goals from open play than Stokes this season in the league. He is a marquee signing that probably comes with a wage to match and I think those of us who are not enthusiastic about his performances think the money could have been spent better elsewhere. I actually think he has been a better better than his last spell(excepting holy grails) which wouldn't be that difficult. But that last spell is the reason I didn't want him to sign.