Ramsdale says he went on strike to force transfer

miraculous

miraculous

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Aaron Ramsdale has revealed he went on strike at Sheffield United in order to force through his £30million move to Arsenal over the summer.
Goalkeeper Ramsdale has dazzled this season for the top-four hopefuls to live up to his price tag, but was forced to fight tooth and nail to secure his dream switch.
Speaking to Ben Foster on his The Cycling GK YouTube channel, the 23-year-old said he took drastic action due to his former club's eye-watering valuation of him.
With Arsenal sniffing around the England stopper, reports emerged that Ramsdale was worth £40million, a figure which raised eyebrows from the player himself.
During the chat with Foster, he said: 'The numbers which were getting thrown out, there were a couple of times where I lost my head, and it was just like, "How can someone be saying £40million for me?"
'I was doing the fan thing: relegated, £40m, it doesn't make sense.'
Sheffield United initially stood firm and rejected a host of bids from Arsenal, triggering Ramsdale to tell the club that he would not play for them again.
He added: 'It got to the point of me saying, "I understand where you're coming from but this is what I want to do."
'They said they wouldn't stand in my way if a bid comes in or whatever.
'And there were bids coming in and they were turning them down, and I said, "Look, you just said…"
'They were making these numbers up, saying, "If we sell you for this then we have to pay Bournemouth back all in one go now and we only have this amount of profit".
'So it went on and I got told the day of a game that another bid had come in and I decided to play, so Sheffield United knew that, and then after the game they rejected it.
'Normally if you don't get a move you are rewarded with a new contract – it's not set in stone but it's normal, you saw it at Brentford with Ollie Watkins when he didn't move – so we said that.
And someone at the football club, won't name names, said: "We didn't ask him to take less money when he was conceding goals at the start of last year".
'And that was when I basically went, "No, I won't play against West Brom, do what you want."
'And then I didn't train for the first two days, and the manager was like, "He'll be alright, he'll play", and Tuesday came and I said, "I'm not playing."
'Wednesday the team news comes out that I'm not in the squad and then within 45 minutes, about 10 minutes before kick-off, I was on my way down [to sign].'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ramsdale went on STRIKE at Sheffield United to force Arsenal move

Ramsdale has dazzled this season for top-four hopefuls Arsenal to live up to his £30million price tag, but was forced to fight tooth and nail to secure the switch.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Aww Skew said:
How so?

If the club values him at £40m, his wage should be reflective of that. Reading his account it appears that Sheffield Utd weren’t willing to up his wages to match their valuation

The club can’t have it both ways and expect players not to exert their power
Click to expand...
He is under contract and for him to say he wasn’t prepared to play while taking a wage
 
Normally, I'm on the clubs side but I can understand why he got pissed off with them.

Relegated but breaking into the England team (2nd Choice, but still). In all honesty, he'd probably taken a look at Jack Butland's career and thought "I'm not doing that". Then he gets told he's valued at £40m which is insane.

Sheffield United rejected a bunch of bids and refused to let him move because they would only make £x million amount in profit and they valued him at £40m. OK, so the natural move is to ask for wages a £40m player would get and they responded with "No, you're lucky we didn't dock your wages because you've been shit".

Yet they valued him at £40m and were rejecting a bunch of bids?

At that point I'd also have been dead set on getting the hell out of there by any means necessary.
 
northsealoyal said:
He is under contract and for him to say he wasn’t prepared to play while taking a wage
Click to expand...
He’s signed for £18m, the club gave him a contract based on that transfer fee.

A big club comes in for him so they value him at £40m, yet they don’t offer him a new contract reflective of how the club value him

Yes downing tools isn’t a great look however I’d have 100% done the same thing under the circumstances. The difference between normal people and football players is that they’re an asset in the clubs balance sheet - as said, the club can’t have it both ways. For what it’s worth, I think the club and the player are both in the wrong to certain degrees
 
Mr_Miscellaneous said:
Normally, I'm on the clubs side but I can understand why he got pissed off with them.

Relegated but breaking into the England team (2nd Choice, but still). In all honesty, he'd probably taken a look at Jack Butland's career and thought "I'm not doing that". Then he gets told he's valued at £40m which is insane.

Sheffield United rejected a bunch of bids and refused to let him move because they would only make £x million amount in profit and they valued him at £40m. OK, so the natural move is to ask for wages a £40m player would get and they responded with "No, you're lucky we didn't dock your wages because you've been shit".

Yet they valued him at £40m and were rejecting a bunch of bids?

At that point I'd also have been dead set on getting the hell out of there by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
Yup, this in a nutshell

Same thing I said when we were rejecting £8m for Paterson. We better be paying him wages reflective of our valuation
 
Aww Skew said:
How so?

If the club values him at £40m, his wage should be reflective of that. Reading his account it appears that Sheffield Utd weren’t willing to up his wages to match their valuation

The club can’t have it both ways and expect players not to exert their power
Click to expand...

Had many folk on here tell me I’m wrong about this before. It’s okay for us to shout about our players being worth 20-30m but if that’s true you have to be paying them 20-30m player wages. It’s a huge factor in valuations.
 
Woody83 said:
Pretty much been done since football has ever been a thing
Click to expand...
Not true. Players used to be told by their clubs where they were being sold to and told to pack their bags. Without being an expert it was probably the emergence of agents and Bosman/players union/ employment law that tipped it in their favour.
 
Neilston Unionist said:
Had many folk on here tell me I’m wrong about this before. It’s okay for us to shout about our players being worth 20-30m but if that’s true you have to be paying them 20-30m player wages. It’s a huge factor in valuations.
Click to expand...
Ajax, Feyenoord Benfica, Porto, Sporting lisbon, Dinamo Zagreb, Galatasary etc pay those kind of wages before selling on?

Most players moving on these fees, from clubs in our wage brackets, get a BIG salary increase. Part of the attraction of moving.
 
Last edited:
Neilston Unionist said:
Had many folk on here tell me I’m wrong about this before. It’s okay for us to shout about our players being worth 20-30m but if that’s true you have to be paying them 20-30m player wages. It’s a huge factor in valuations.
Click to expand...
It’s obviously different if a team comes in with a high bid and the club accepts the first offer.

For example, imagine someone offering us £50m for one of our players - that would be accepted instantly so there would be no need to have their wages reflective of the transfer fee

If, however, we rejected the £50m as we valued them at £60m, a player would have every right to demand their wages reflected the £60m valuation
 
HamiltonBear said:
Ajax, Feyenoord Benfica, Porto, Sporting lisbon, Dinamo Zagreb, Galatasary etc pay those kind of wages before selling on?
Click to expand...
Aww Skew said:
It’s obviously different if a team comes in with a high bid and the club accepts the first offer.

For example, imagine someone offering us £50m for one of our players - that would be accepted instantly so there would be no need to have their wages reflective of the transfer fee

If, however, we rejected the £50m as we valued them at £60m, a player would have every right to demand their wages reflected the £60m valuation
Click to expand...
Extreme example but highlights the difference.

If Ajax et al are rejecting the first bid because they have outrageous valuations, then the players have every right to ask for improved terms

If Ajax et al put a valuation on a player that put off prospective clubs, I’d fully expect the players to down tools too
 
Aww Skew said:
It’s obviously different if a team comes in with a high bid and the club accepts the first offer.

For example, imagine someone offering us £50m for one of our players - that would be accepted instantly so there would be no need to have their wages reflective of the transfer fee

If, however, we rejected the £50m as we valued them at £60m, a player would have every right to demand their wages reflected the £60m valuation
Click to expand...
Sorry, that is not true. Their agents would, rightly demand an increase in salary. To expect an EPL or Serie A or La Liga salary is not going to happen. Alfie got an increase 3 times but he would get far more if for example Everton bid for him. So you reckon if a 100k p/w contract is on the table for him we need to match it?
 
HamiltonBear said:
Ajax, Feyenoord Benfica, Porto, Sporting lisbon, Dinamo Zagreb, Galatasary etc pay those kind of wages before selling on?

Most players moving on these fees, from clubs in our wage brackets, get a BIG salary increase. Part of the attraction of moving.
Click to expand...

Two or three of those clubs have double our wage bill.

We do pay sufficient wages for these valuations to some players.
 
Aww Skew said:
Extreme example but highlights the difference.

If Ajax et al are rejecting the first bid because they have outrageous valuations, then the players have every right to ask for improved terms

If Ajax et al put a valuation on a player that put off prospective clubs, I’d fully expect the players to down tools too
Click to expand...
Improved terms, yes. Matching terms, no. I think every player that we want to keep has been given better terms and most have accepted them. Has to be within our wage structure.
 
HamiltonBear said:
Sorry, that is not true. Their agents would, rightly demand an increase in salary. To expect an EPL or Serie A or La Liga salary is not going to happen. Alfie got an increase 3 times but he would get far more if for example Everton bid for him. So you reckon if a 100k p/w contract is on the table for him we need to match it?
Click to expand...
No but you can’t expect someone to be on a salary of, say, £5-8k a week but you value them at £8m+ (that’s me speculating here)

Of course, an EPL team could be offering £50k but I’m not saying you’d need to match that; I’m saying the club should then be increasing the players salary, in this instance to say £20k a week etc

You simply can’t expect players to plod along as normal if you prevent them getting a big move, with life-changing salary increase, without then reviewing the salary you’re paying them and increase it accordingly
 
  • Like
Reactions: TQ3
Aww Skew said:
No but you can’t expect someone to be on a salary of, say, £5-8k a week but you value them at £8m+ (that’s me speculating here)

Of course, an EPL team could be offering £50k but I’m not saying you’d need to match that; I’m saying the club should then be increasing the players salary, in this instance to say £20k a week etc

You simply can’t expect players to plod along as normal if you prevent them getting a big move, with life-changing salary increase, without then reviewing the salary you’re paying them and increase it accordingly
Click to expand...
My point is, it doesnt look like we do. We offer new terms regularly in accordance with what we can afford. Most players, and their agents seem reasonable enough to accept the terms on offer.
 
HamiltonBear said:
Improved terms, yes. Matching terms, no. I think every player that we want to keep has been given better terms and most have accepted them. Has to be within our wage structure.
Click to expand...
But if they’re already on a high salary and you whack an unrealistic valuation on them, you need to be prepared for the consequences

You either increase their salary and break the wage structure or you need to accept a player will down tools. If it was a rangers player I’d find it difficult to get angry at them because I think the clubs aren’t blameless at times
 
Aww Skew said:
But if they’re already on a high salary and you whack an unrealistic valuation on them, you need to be prepared for the consequences

You either increase their salary and break the wage structure or you need to accept a player will down tools. If it was a rangers player I’d find it difficult to get angry at them because I think the clubs aren’t blameless at times
Click to expand...
I'm sure the players and agents will know the ballpark valuations. When was the last player to refuse to play for us demanding a move?

Looks like inventing a problem that isn't there for us. The only player I think we will lose purely down to financial disparity is NP. He is not a regular but his situation is different. He is worth more in terms of value than Tav only because of his age. Tav is still a better player (imo). NP might have a higher ceiling in total career progression but that is still to be seen. Can we pay NP a top first team regular wage when he is not a first team starter? By your reckoning Tav should get a lower wage and NP be a top earner as their transfer value dictates wages?
 
HamiltonBear said:
I'm sure the players and agents will know the ballpark valuations. When was the last player to refuse to play for us demanding a move?

Looks like inventing a problem that isn't there for us. The only player I think we will lose purely down to financial disparity is NP. He is not a regular but his situation is different. He is worth more in terms of value than Tav only because of his age. Tav is still a better player (imo). NP might have a higher ceiling in total career progression but that is still to be seen. Can we pay NP a top first team regular wage when he is not a first team starter? By your reckoning Tav should get a lower wage and NP be a top earner as their transfer value dictates wages?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily as you’d expect a virtually ever-present captain to be one of the highest earners however id fully expect Paterson to earn at least the median level of our squad, if not a bit more

You can’t value a player at £8m+ and pay peanuts hence I’d have thought the club would’ve increased his salary in-line with their valuation
 
As an aside what would NP and his agent do if Everton offered the same or slighly higher wage that he picks up now at Rangers,no matter what the transfer fee?
 
Hap Hapablap said:
Saying "we didn't start reducing your wages when you were shite and letting in goals" is top notch shithousery from whoever at Sheffield United said that.
Click to expand...
To me that is the tipping point, as much as it has a logic to it, it isn’t how these things work, and it will get the gander up of any player if that was said to them.
 
Aww Skew said:
Not necessarily as you’d expect a virtually ever-present captain to be one of the highest earners however id fully expect Paterson to earn at least the median level of our squad, if not a bit more

You can’t value a player at £8m+ and pay peanuts hence I’d have thought the club would’ve increased his salary in-line with their valuation
Click to expand...
But I am saying it looks like we don't pay peanuts. I am sure NP is quite happy with his current contract. I doubt there is a problem in that respect. Remember the days of Di Canio, Cadete and Van Donkey all telling the world they were promised the world and let down? Unhappy players agents get their unhappy stories out.

We are not seeing that at Rangers.
 
For those saying pay them a contract for what the club values them at, how is this worked out? Is there a general rule to how much they should be getting if a value of £40M is places on their head?
 
Aww Skew said:
He’s signed for £18m, the club gave him a contract based on that transfer fee.

A big club comes in for him so they value him at £40m, yet they don’t offer him a new contract reflective of how the club value him

Yes downing tools isn’t a great look however I’d have 100% done the same thing under the circumstances. The difference between normal people and football players is that they’re an asset in the clubs balance sheet - as said, the club can’t have it both ways. For what it’s worth, I think the club and the player are both in the wrong to certain degrees
Click to expand...
A £22m profit AND they got Lundstram off the wage bill.
 
Strange business by Sheffield United. Had him as a kid, sell him to Bournemouth for £1m. He then spends two years on loan at lower division clubs. Has one season back at Bournemouth in the EPL and Sheffield buy him back for £18.5m. They proceed to get relegated and he is sold for £30m less the sell on fee to Bournemouth and the agents fee - probably around £7m profit. If they’d kept him as kid they’d have made £30m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top