"It's important that the people know the player did not want to stay at Hull City," said Silva, whose side travel to Fulham in the FA Cup fourth round tomorrow. "If our fans are unhappy then I am unhappy also. All of the club is unhappy. "Since my first day here I said to you that I don't want the player to leave. I didn't want any of our best players to leave. "The player said to the club and to the chairman that he didn't want to stay any more with Hull City. He wanted to leave the club. After that came the offers and the moment that the chairman looked to see if a deal was possible." Asked if he was disappointed with the attitude of Snodgrass, who turned down City's contract offer before Christmas, Silva added: "I don't want to talk about this. "The player sometimes wants to improve the career and clubs make good offers for them. The players need to pay attention to their families also. This is football but it's important that our fans understand that the player talked to the club and says he wants to leave."
He told Silva he wanted to leave, on Silva's first day in the job, he had no idea about his coaching methods and Silva quite obviously wanted to keep him.
He could have easily changed his mind, instead he decided to say "**** you" to the new coach, us the fans and to his fellow team mates. All because the club exercised an option he agreed to 3 years ago, just before he had a year off recovering, and because they allegedly didn't go and buy him a coffee and talk to him all nice? ****s trick from him. He's gone though, so lets just move on, these are genuinely exciting times on the field, lets hope this continues, the off field ****e is sorted, and we can enjoy a new period of success and entertainment.
Wow everyone turning on Snograss is so disappointing! Just wondering though, where does it state that Snodgrass actually 'refused' to train? I have seen MS saying "he hasn't trained with us for 12 days" - but was this down to his injury and so being unable to train rather than unwilling? I see quotes saying he wanted to leave, and for me that's totally fine given our owners and his lack of a (good enough) contract offer. Just think it's important to get the facts before we turn on a guy that has basically kept us within reach of staying in the prem.
I think doubling his wages was also a contributing factor. Snoddy's got a 3.5 year deal on wages of probably upwards of £60k a week. I certainly wouldn't have offered him that.
Okay, I see where you're going with this. You are talking about what any business should do to manage, within the workplace, an individual who has got mental health issues, rather than being responsible for getting them care, as we discussed in later posts. This is what I questioned: I replied: "So employers now have a responsibility for ensuring their employees get the correct help in relation to mental health problems - really?" You were adament they were responsible for this. This is totally different to managing the workplace environment and business procedures. Some quotes from your link: Yes they do. This is achieved by good management, the same good management that all employees should enjoy. Some things that can be included are: achievable targets and accurate management information, a robust Health and Safety Policy, a legal and clearly defined sickness benefit scheme, a robust procedure for 1-2-1 appraisal, return to work assessments, anti-bullying policy, Compliance Policy. there will be more but these are a decent start to taking away workplace stress. Absolutely, just as with someone with MS, Parkinson's, etc.. As I said to you earlier, what can and will be done will be affected by scale and, sadly, attitude, but the level of responsibility you alluded to is just not there except as discussed above.
Absolutely. At the end of the day clubs stake a lot and invest a lot of money bringing players to clubs, paying for medical care etc. The amount of power players hold over clubs is wrong and needs to change somehow. I'm not sure your suggestion is the way about doing it as a player could just put in half arsed performances but something needs to change.
I'm really not sure what you mean here: engineered by Snodgrass or the Club? To make it easier, I have always said it was Snodgrass who engineered the move and I thought it piss-poor, I still do. Silvas most recent interview seems to totally back up what I have been saying. I have always said I would have preferred to keep Snodgrass, as he gives Silva options and I have not slated the ability of Snodgrass (although overrated in some aspects), just because he is leaving. I have also been very clear that if it was down to keeping Snodgrass or selling him to fund the rebuilding of a very lopsided squad (undoing the damage of Steve Bruce), then I would sell him - I don't get involved in finances as that always comes out in the wash much later.
We offered him a poor contract without any duration If we had given him a decent one he would have remained. He is not exactly a turncoat traitor. Im in two minds about it due to his age. Maybe now was the right time to let him go or maybe we could have done more to get him to stay. We do seem poor at contracts. Summer would have been better but it wasn't to be.
Did we 'stand by him'? He was our player (asset) so of course we are going to give him the best medical attention and try to get him back playing as soon as possible. I don't see what alternative there was. I think you're confusing this for 'loyalty' maybe? Like I say, I don't care that players want to leave, thats just football. My main point was trying to clarify whether or not he refused to train, or was simply unable to due to injury.
