Ric Flair Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 Let's get a few things straight. I'm getting sick and tired of people making judgements on Dawson without ever seeing him play. The one's that have seen him play are the one's that are extremely upset that's he's left, what does that tell you? Please can you not spout shit about something you have no knowledge of for the one's that haven't seen him. He might be 19 and not played in the first team, but that doesn't make him crap. Remember we had Micky Adams as manager who is reluctant to play players under 30.Anyway i've had a few days to let what's happened sink in and although i'm still gutted Dawson has left, i'm not going to get on Levein's back. I think he's made a mistake and could of handled things better with Dawson but this is one bad decision he's made. He's made alot of great decisions and it was inevitable he'd do something the fans didn't like, all managers do at some point. I'm still fully behind Levein (support wise) and it will take alot more than what he's done with the Dawson issue to make me think otherwise, but i'm still upset and frustrated. I had kind of pinned my hopes on Dawson being the answer to our midfield problems, which obviously won't happen now. At 19 you want assurances about your football, first team football is the main priority and if Dawson felt like he wasn't being treated fairly than I can understand why he's left. We don't know exactly what contract he's been offered, if it's the same as Stearman's that won't be that much. I personally don't think he should be offered that much and the money possibly isn't the issue here, it's the gesture that he's been offered less money than his previous contract (which won't have been much anyway) also the fact he was allegedly promised a run-out against Plymouth which Levein didn't do. Only time will tell if this has been a major mistake or not, I get the feeling it will be but i've been wrong before. The disappointing thing is he was an essential part of our future and it made sense to do everything we could to keep him here with the nature of the plans Craig has for this club. I challenge him to find someone with the talent Dawson has for less money. We have got the mighty Wesolowski but Levein hasn't ever mentioned him so whether he's ready to take the step up is questionable. Craig Levein, Superstar Came down to Leicester on a Yamaha Pulled a skid, killed a kid (Dawson) Went back to Hearts on a dustbin lid. Over to you Craig, do what you do best. Sign us 'the next Stephen Dawson' 111340[/snapback] No offence Hoof, but I hope he signs us someone better than Dawson, otherwise in a year we'll have another player rejecting a contract 111458[/snapback] That was a joke Barton by the way! At 19 you want assurances about your football, first team football is the main priority and if Dawson felt like he wasn't being treated fairly than I can understand why he's left. 111340[/snapback] At this level, exactly how many first-team regulars are 19? 111481[/snapback] Not that many but at 19 you want to have assurances about first team football at his age, as in indication that your going to be involved in the first team. A one year deal on reduced wages, with little assurances on first team football and failed promises in a run-out against Plymouth has probably led to Dawson seeking first team football with a football club that can offer him that with the stability of longer than a season. League 1 or League 2, I imagine.
shen Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 At 19 you want assurances about your football, first team football is the main priority and if Dawson felt like he wasn't being treated fairly than I can understand why he's left. 111340[/snapback] At this level, exactly how many first-team regulars are 19? 111481[/snapback] It's fair to call Stearman a regular and he's 17. I know that doesn't answer your question, just making a point
Louise Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 At 19 you want assurances about your football, first team football is the main priority and if Dawson felt like he wasn't being treated fairly than I can understand why he's left. 111340[/snapback] At this level, exactly how many first-team regulars are 19? 111481[/snapback] It's fair to call Stearman a regular and he's 17. I know that doesn't answer your question, just making a point 111497[/snapback] 8 appearances over a 46-game season is hardly a regular.
Ric Flair Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 At 19 you want assurances about your football, first team football is the main priority and if Dawson felt like he wasn't being treated fairly than I can understand why he's left. 111340[/snapback] At this level, exactly how many first-team regulars are 19? 111481[/snapback] It's fair to call Stearman a regular and he's 17. I know that doesn't answer your question, just making a point 111497[/snapback] 8 appearances over a 46-game season is hardly a regular. 111514[/snapback] More regular than 0 appearances as in Dawson's case.
shen Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 At 19 you want assurances about your football, first team football is the main priority and if Dawson felt like he wasn't being treated fairly than I can understand why he's left. 111340[/snapback] At this level, exactly how many first-team regulars are 19? 111481[/snapback] It's fair to call Stearman a regular and he's 17. I know that doesn't answer your question, just making a point 111497[/snapback] 8 appearances over a 46-game season is hardly a regular. 111514[/snapback] He's been on the bench around half of those 46 games. Isn't the bench recognised as part of the first team?
Jonbluefox9 Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 The one's that have seen him play are the one's that are extremely upset that's he's left, what does that tell you? I've seen him play but I'm not extremely upset. Imo he was one of the better players in an average group of youngsters (no offence intended to the others in his age bracket). Players can be made to look better than they are if they're playing alongside shit.
TrickyTrev Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 If he was offered the same terms of Stearman and he turned them down then that is his problem. If Levein were to offer him any more he would have Sheehan, Stearman, Weslowski, Porter all knocking on his door demanding higher wages.
City Fan Posted 19 May 2005 Posted 19 May 2005 I think it was the length of the contract Dawson wouldn't have liked. Levein can't think that much to him if he only offered him a years contract. Why cant we just get rid of the Birch and Horny Henry, and give Dawson a proper contract with their wages?
Durnerz Posted 20 May 2005 Posted 20 May 2005 Never saw the lad play. However at the end of the day its up to the manager, he's trying to bring the wage bill down, he wants players who want to play for this club, Steve Dawson fits neither category. Bye bye
Fox in a Box Posted 20 May 2005 Posted 20 May 2005 If ...and I say If he was that he was that good, then why didnt he play for us last year?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.