Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up
EDITORS BLOG

The last word on Gosling

I know we've done this to death, but this has to be one of the strangest ever transfer sagas Everton have been involved with, and this little piece caught the eye as a final wrap-up:

Dan Gosling was in tears the day Everton left him without a contract and with a major worry over his future.

The England under-21 midfielder has been at the centre of the strangest transfer story of the summer as David Moyes' club failed to make him an offer to stay and opened the door for him to join Newcastle United on a free.

Now Gosling's adviser and friend David Hodgson has lifted the lid on the background to the Goodison kid leaving in a move that needed a Premier League inquiry because it was so unique.

Hodgson, a former Liverpool and Sunderland player, has never seen anything like it in 30 years.

Everton have lost out on a potential 5 million pounds transfer fee but Hodgson believes it was their fault, insisting: "Dan Gosling did not walk out on Everton they chose not to keep him.

"Everton had an obligation to offer him a contract in writing by the third Saturday in May. They could have offered him 1 pound more than his old contract and could have kept him or got a fee for him at a tribunal.

"I rang Dan that day to ask if he had got the letter. It hadn't arrived. He wasn't jumping around the room in delight because he was a free agent. He was broken-hearted, in tears."

Hodgson thinks the knee problem Gosling suffered was the reason Everton let his contract run out.

But Hodgson added: "They probably felt that because Dan's injury was so serious maybe nobody was going to sign him and they were in a position to offer him anything they wanted. But the final diagnosis on May 26 said he could be back playing by January."
Now it's oh so easy to dismiss this as absolute rubbish... especially when it comes from a kopite... and especially when you know the source: Alan Nixon in The People.

The thing for me is it fits the facts a lot better than the knee-jerk "Gosling desperate to leave"..."money-grabbing twat" ... "he was no good anyway" crap that people have spouted on here as they swallowed the Club line, hock and sinker too. And it explains the silence from the Club. And it coincides with what a handful of more balanced minds were suspecting on here amidst the rabid victimisation of the player, and the astounding suggestion that Everton simply "forgot" to give him a contract extension.

The puzzler remains the surrendered fee and the lack of appeal. But there must be internal reasons why they did not go for that. It will be really interesting to see the extent of his recovery in six or seven months, whether he comes back to play at all, to what level, and whether he ever becomes a Prem player.
Michael Kenrick     Posted 26/07/2010 at

back Return to the Editors Blog

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Peter Hall
1   Posted 26/07/2010 at 17:17:34

Report abuse

Bas Rathbone departed in a hurry around the time mentioned, that seemed strange at that time.

Could there be a connection between the club's reading of the injury, the Gosling saga, and maybe this other depatrture? Maybe both the player and the club were left disappointed? And maybe a head has already rolled?
Fran Mitchell
2   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:02:25

Report abuse

I am inclined to agree with Michael on this one.
Ron Joynson
3   Posted 26/07/2010 at 17:55:11

Report abuse

Michael. How can you say "people swallowed the club line, hock and sinker" and yet in the very next sentence readily admit that the club have remained silent on the matter. This I admit is extremely unprofessional for a major organisation, but hardly in varience with anything. Please explain?
Miles Wilson
4   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:08:27

Report abuse

There is no doubt that the club ballsed up big time, but don't ask me to believe Gosling was hanging round the letter box in tears like a schoolkid waiting for exam results... Business is not run like that. Pure spin from his agent.
Tony McNulty
5   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:15:37

Report abuse

Far from the ?last word?, the speculation on this one will now continue unabated even when the club eventually come out with their official spin.

The point is that someone, somewhere, within the Everton camp has lost us some money (amusing to note it has now grown to £5 million.)

Now that we know Dan was ?in tears? I wonder if the plan is for Bill to turn it into a musical ? ?Flight of the £15 million Gosling?? ? and make up the revenue that way.
Ken Buckley
6   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:09:28

Report abuse

A strange case. I wonder why Dan's agent didn't contact the club and ask on his behalf the clubs stance on his position and were they indeed making him a free transfer case. If Dan was so upset at not receiving the letter surely this is one of the things he has an agent for. The agent's reported reasoning for this case would have been much clearer if he had been able to state the club's response to a direct query regarding the matter.
Thor Sørensen
7   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:17:21

Report abuse

I hardly think it puzzling that the club "surrendered" a fee. If they'd opted to offer Gosling a new contract, even £1 better than his previous one, had he accepted it they would have been stuck with an injured player that they apperantly didn't want to retain.

In other words, they never offered Gosling a new contract, even a paltry one, since they weren't prepared to run the risk of him actually agreeing to it.

And the lack of appeal? I think the club believed a lack of an appeal wouldn't draw too much attention in the media, and to be fair it hasn't, so it worked out well for them.
Alan Noon
8   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:21:55

Report abuse

I didn't have time to read the various posts on DG but I imagine it went something like this.... greedy bastard, Everton incompetent staff, etc ? Normal emotional reactions.

However, I assume that EFC let his contract, or lack of it, run out due to the severity of his knee issues, then if it looked too bad, they could simply drop him. Although I am sure they could have put a clause in the contract or have insurance against the player.

It's too easy to attack the player on this issue, maybe he is a greedy so and so, I don't know... but it is too easy to jump to conclusions? Also, remember the problems that Stubbs had with EFC and his contract?

Dave Smith
9   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:29:19

Report abuse

If Gosling was 'in tears' over leaving Everton, then why did he take Everton to a tribunal to do just that?

Something doesn't add up there either. Everton may have played their part, but Gosling isn't innocent in all this.
Dick Anderson
10   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:33:02

Report abuse

David Moyes clearly had doubts over Dan Gosling:

1. Would he ever fully recover from his injury?

2. Even if he did recover was he ever going to be good enough to play for Everton regularly?

My guess is that Moyes didn't want to offer Gosling a huge improved contract with so much uncertainty.

So the contract was probably delayed for as long as possible. Then Gosling discovered he could walk away from Everton and sign for Newcastle who would pay him a wage almost double what Everton were talking about.

Plus at Newcastle Gosling has a chance of playing regularly in midfield.

At Everton he was behind Pienaar, Cahill, Arteta, Rodwell, Osman and Fellaini.

He had very little chance of making it in the Everton midfield. So he left for Newcastle where he'll get more football and a bigger wage.
Andy Crooks
11   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:35:57

Report abuse

I don't think we'd have got anything remotely like £5 million for Gosling. However, if we'd have got £500,000 it still rates as a mistake. Unsurprising mismanagement. Still, as I said before it would take a major injury crisis for Gosling to start. I think Newcastle have made a typical bad signing.
Kevin Hudson
12   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:35:46

Report abuse

Could it be that Gosling's career is potentially "finished," and the club have made the prudent call in electing to let him go? Is there a clause with Plymouth that we have to pay them more money pending appearances?

Let's get Mulder & Scully on the case!
Neil McKinney
13   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:40:49

Report abuse

I'm sure more will come out on this issue as time goes by, but I fail to see the logic regarding the supposed fee that we missed out on.

Apart from the fact that I think we'd have been lucky to get £4m for a fit and healthy Dan Gosling, I do not believe that Newcastle or any other club would have paid £1m never mind £5m for a player who is injured and will not play til January if ever again.

Now I'm sure that Dan will be back in January (I wish him well) but there is never any certainty with knee injuries and before said injury we had verbally agreed a deal that would've cost us all in about £2.5m. I am not surprised that following Dan's unfortunate injury there was no rush to put the contract in writing. Not saying the club are right or wrong, just that I see the logic in a business sense.

What I don't understand is all this posturing about us missing out on a fee. There is no way a tribunal would've awarded us £4m never mind £5m and if they had Newcastle and every other club would've run a mile.

At the same time I will not be too quick to call Gosling "greedy" or "money grabbing" as I'm sure that when his knee went pop all he wanted was a contract to secure his future and I don't blame him for that.

Not too sure about "the last word". Think you'll find there will be plenty more discussion on this one.
David Hallwood
14   Posted 26/07/2010 at 18:49:39

Report abuse

If I, or anyone else for that matter, was waiting for their employer to send them a new contract; what would be your reaction? If it happened to me, my thoughts would be, Oh fuck I'm not wanted, where's my hat & coat.

Obviously in the background, Mr 15% has probably been hawking his meal ticket round, but that's what they do, and I'm inclined to believe Hodgson's side of the story, because let's be honest our board's got previous.
Guy Hastings
15   Posted 26/07/2010 at 19:10:25

Report abuse

'... and especially when you know the source: Alan Nixon in The People. ' That'll do for me.
Mike Gaynes
16   Posted 26/07/2010 at 19:10:29

Report abuse

Maybe I'm a sucker, but I too find the agent's version of events far more credible than the tales of Gosling's "greed" or Everton's incompetence. The only thing in the article that doesn't make sense is the speculated five million... knock a zero off that, if anything.

I think Dick's got it right. Moyes made the decision not to give a new contract to its 8th-best midfielder as he entered a lengthy injury rehab with an uncertain outcome.
David Thomas
17   Posted 26/07/2010 at 19:18:42

Report abuse

Dan Gosling left Everton for money. End of. There is no more to this story than that.
Stan Sheppard
18   Posted 26/07/2010 at 19:14:28

Report abuse

Although .... he'd have been like a new signing if/when he came back from injury...
Sean McKenna
19   Posted 26/07/2010 at 19:29:23

Report abuse

Who really cares? He was an average player at best, we have much better youth players than young Dan, and who pays £5 million for an average injured player? If it was Arteta or Rodwell, yes, I could understand the uproar... but Gosling, get real, the only thing that bugs me is the club silence on all things blue. Like investment, new ground, signing players, selling players, players contracts etc ? the club need to sort out the communication system.
Tony Rice
20   Posted 26/07/2010 at 19:54:03

Report abuse

Actually David (#17), Dan Gosling left Everton for NO money... and THAT is the point. I couldn't care less why he decided to leave. The fact that EFC allowed an asset to leave for free is the problem. The club isn't exactly rolling in cash... so if we could have gotten anything for him... we should have. (Obviously these £4-5 mill estimates are just kopite media crap... but surely a few hundred thousand pounds for him would have been better than nothing.) All we had to do was submit a written offer...

I'd be interested to hear the club's version.

Charlie Percival
21   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:18:16

Report abuse

Sorry but if his career's over then why have Newcastle given him £25k a week until January (when he's expected back)? By my reckoning, that's a hell of a lot of money... I thought Aquilani was a bad buy ? lol!
Gavin Ramejkis
22   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:33:33

Report abuse

My problem with the "maybe he'll never play again" and not offering a contract ignores a basic premise of the players being insured. Surely, given a contract offer with terms similar to the one offered to Alan Stubbs and with insurance in place, the club would not have lost out either way with the insurance paying out if he proved to be crocked permanently, or kept a squad player if not.

The newspaper story quoted smacks of fairytale hard-done-by bullshit even more so when you hear it was his RS scumbag agent quoted and written by that prick Alan Nixon in The People, you may as well read the News of the Screws and believe in fairies.
Luke Berry
23   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:25:57

Report abuse

There is a massive contradiction going on here with regards to what his agent is implying.

Surely if the club offered him even just a renewal of the contract on the exact same terms then Everton would have been in a position to sell him? Even if Moyes believed that he wouldn't recover, he would have known for sure that there would have been other clubs out there willing to take a risk on a 'prospect' and if he was savvy (which I believe he is) he would have exploited that fact and tried to make a bit of money on (potentially) crocked player. As it stands he (or whomever was responsible) missed a trick.

I believe it was a club cock-up, exploited by greedy agent (no need to mention the partisan allegiance he may have) and in the end the club is just a bit embarrassed about acting in such an inept manner.

On the point of Baz getting the heave: as the head physio, he would have been responsible solely for the rehabilitation of players after injury and not for diagnoses regarding a player's ability to recover, that would surely be left to specialist Doctors?
Tim O'Connell
24   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:46:07

Report abuse

First issue, please refer to Ken Buckley: Michael and Mike Gaynes imply believing Hodgson's version might be correct ? but the first thing an agent would do is contact the club to get the facts ? but no, he used it to get Gosling a better deal ? so how can you put credibility behind the agent's version? Get real, the agent was out for money!

Second issue ? the club's silence: either they are embarrassed by the cock-up, but everyone knows that the debate will rumble on so silence does not work ? or they were worried about the injury and have played a game. Whichever, I agree a statement would help.

Eric Myles
25   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:50:54

Report abuse

Gavin, you forget that insurance companies want payment for thier services, and the insurance for an already crocked player would be high, not to mention the 'pre-existing conditions' exclusion clauses on renewal.
Mike Wilson
26   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:45:05

Report abuse

Sorry to come in on this one late, but is there any possible connection between this massive balls up at the legal / administrative level and the collapse of Halliwells in recent weeks?

I understand they provided our legal services. This may also explain the club's lack of comment on the situation if we are looking for new legal representation.

Whatever the reason ? our error, Dan wanting a first team place, or an agent looking to make a quick quid ? the next time he steps onto the Goodison turf, I imagine he will get a welcome similar to that of Barmby, Speed etc, deserved or not.
Luke Berry
27   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:48:36

Report abuse

Regarding a fee for Gosling. This would have been decided by a tribunal if the clubs couldn't agree on a fee. What follows is the information regarding the sale of Sturridge to Chelsea, which I believe gives a fairly decent idea of the fee we could have expected for Gosling.....
With Sturridge's contract at Manchester City expired, he signed for Chelsea on a four-year contract on 3 July 2009. As Sturridge is under the age of 24 and the two sides were unable to agree a deal, the fee for Sturridge was decided by a tribunal. The Professional Football Compensation Committee decided on 14 January 2010, that Chelsea would pay an initial fee of £3.5 million with additional payments of £500,000 after each of 10, 20, 30 and 40 first-team competitive appearances. There will also be a further payment of £1 million if the player makes a full international appearance, and Manchester City will receive 15 per cent of any sell-on fee if Sturridge is transferred.
I hope this clarifies what we realistically missed out on. Gosling, despite what some posters have said, is considered roundly as a prospect within the game and we could have expected a fee of at least £2.5 million for him.
Mark Murphy
28   Posted 26/07/2010 at 21:07:05

Report abuse

Sometimes I wonder why, when some of you have such contempt for our club, and I am NOT a BK aplogist, why you bother sticking with us?

A dodgy kopite reporter in an extremely dodgy chav Sunday newspaper prints an agent's sob story to deflect stick that may (or may not as I don't give a monkey's about Dan Gosling anymore) be directed at his client and it must be true as Everton's management are the anti-christ and must be in the wrong!

Dick Fearon
29   Posted 26/07/2010 at 20:49:05

Report abuse

My concern for Gosling is tempered by the thought that, in those two and a half years with Everton, he would have picked up 3 mil quid (my guess). Not bad pickings for a third or even 4th choice midfielder. His other perks would include first class travel, ridiculously short working days and top class accomodation. A kind of lifestyle beyond the wildest dreams of the average fan. In today's money-grabbing world, a professional footballer would be way down my list of those deserving sympathy.

Good luck to, Dan and I hope for his sake that he can once again climb aboard the gravy train. Should that not happen, he can at least look back on a very rewarding stint as a player.

Nick Waters
30   Posted 26/07/2010 at 21:12:43

Report abuse

I see this as an arrangement ? arrived at accidentally or by design ? which actually suits all parties.

Firstly Everton: there was no prospect of playing him this season, because of injury and the pecking order ? so why pay him?

Also, no club, not one, would have made a bid for him (in his current state), nor would have gone to a tribunal (Sturridge already mentioned, and don't forget Garbutt's verdict too). So what would Everton have gained by offering him a 2-year extension deal? Nothing, because he could be totally finished, or forever eighth or ninth midfield choice.

Secondly, Newcastle, or whoever, have taken a gamble on what the injury has made possible ? namely the acquisition of a decent and promising youngster with PL experience, but with a big question-mark. The payoff is a lack of fee. As I said, put a fee or a tribunal appearance into the equation and no-one's interested, no-one at all!

Thirdly, Gosling (and agent) have a future, both financial and possibly footballing, with a decent club (let's be fair?) without a pecking order that leaves him trailing near the end.

The injury is clearly the catalyst here and it changed everything. For good or bad for EFC? Time will tell, but have we in fact dodged a bullet with the 'cock-up', or used hard-headed business acumen (titter ye not) and accepted that a parting was the best way forward?

Brendan McLaughlin
31   Posted 26/07/2010 at 21:41:16

Report abuse

Everton fucked up by not offering Gosling a written contract extension by the due date. After this it was advantage Hodgson/Gosling and at the end of the day money talks!
Gavin Ramejkis
32   Posted 26/07/2010 at 21:50:47

Report abuse

Eric, the assumption is that as a first team player that Gosling would already be insured for the duration of his contract and given the insurance premium was due (in line with a new contract) simple calculus to work out was the premium worth the risk/payout opportunity? The silence from the club given he has left is what is taking the piss, it's not a dignified silence.
Rob Fox
33   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:21:31

Report abuse

The sudden departure of Rathbone was never explained, and seemingly nobody was lined up to replace him. The fact is that Gosling was sent back on by Rathbone to run off an injury we were later told would keep him out for 9 months.

The rest is conjecture, but it seems highly plausible that the club have thought 'hang on' with regards to offering a new contract given the seriousness of the injury. It would seem safe to think nobody would offer a player due to miss most of the season a contract, so we could afford to wait and see how his recovery was going. Now it seems we got the prognosis wrong and other clubs have stepped in.

Who knows the full ins and outs but it's too simplistic just to call him greedy, especially given the club's official silence on the whole saga.

I have to say if I was a professional footballer and was asked to run off an injury, then told it would keep me out for 9 months, then not receive the promised contract, I would have serious doubts about that club's commitment and care towards me. The fact it is now seemingly not as long-term an injury is an unexpected curveball which we didn't anticipate and has now backfired on us. That's my take anyway.
David Thomas
34   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:27:04

Report abuse

Tony,

I am well aware the club lost money that they can ill-afford to lose and that it was a massive error by Everton.

However, the point I was making is Gosling is by no means blameless, he has shown himself for what he is a "greedy bastard" like 99.9% of footballers.
James I'Anson
35   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:32:03

Report abuse

How can we expect loyalty from players when we don't give any back?.

Stewart Oakes
36   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:43:01

Report abuse

I?m sorry to have to say this, but isn?t this just a load of crap!

The club stated that they had offered him a new contract which he had verbally agreed to, the club took him at his word and due to this didn?t feel it necessary to put this in writing. Everton never withdrew this offer.

His existing contract was due to finish on the last day of June and the offer had to be in writing by 21 May, so in the 40 days before his contract expired he never once thought to ask the club about it.

I have look backed over reports on the internet and the first story I can find about this situation is on the 2nd July just 2 days after his contract ran out and there was already talk of him going to Newcastle. Gosling and his agent knew exactly what they were doing.

Steve Guy
37   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:44:10

Report abuse

"Hi Davie? Is that contract in the post?" Simple phone call from the Agent ahead of the deadline if DG was so desparate to stay.......
Jay Harris
38   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:28:37

Report abuse

"In tears" my arse.

If that was the case his agent (one David "rednose" Hodgson) would have been on the phone to EFC to push for the contract renewal in writing.

As some have already pointed out he saw his "Mr 15%" opportunity and drove a bus through Everton's alarmingly poor administration.

Both sides have behaved very badly in this and I am very disappointed in Gosling because I expected better from him.

As for EFC's administration nothing ever surprises me (remember the cocked up flights to Europe? Classic)
Kevin Gillen
39   Posted 26/07/2010 at 22:46:30

Report abuse

These things are always cock-up not conspiracy. It doesn't say a lot for the relationship between this player and the management and administration of the club that it couldn't be sorted out amicably.

The fact that Moyes and Kenwright went to the tribunal to argue the toss tells you that the club messed up and wanted to rectify the situation but whatever light you cast on this scenario it doesn't look good. I simply cannot believe that this would happen at Man Utd (although the John Obi Mikel saga comes close).

I'm sad we lost Gosling, he did well for us and had the potential to be a top central midfielder. Time only will tell.

Brendan O'Doherty
40   Posted 26/07/2010 at 23:00:49

Report abuse

In the same way that there may have been a little bit of truth in the club's OTT spinning of their version in the 'Echo', the same has happened here. This is a way OTT spin by DG's agent which may have a bit of truth in their somewhere.

I mean the thought of Gosling waiting for the letter to drop through his letterbox and then bursting into tears... FFS Hodgson, pull the other one.

"I rang Dan that day to ask if he had got the letter. It hadn't arrived." What letter? The letter you as his agent had been falsely told was going to arrive? You of course had been on the phone non-stop to EFC in the days before, doing your job by asking for this written offer? Thought not.

Both parties are to blame here. EFC by missing the deadline (unless they did it deliberately, as has been suggested), thinking that no-one would come in for a crocked player. DG and his agent for exploiting the situation to it's maximum potential.

If the club are so blameless, WHY DON'T THEY MAKE A STATEMENT? Or at least make a statement explaining why they are unable/unwilling to speak on this issue. Otherwise, people will continue to draw their own conclusions.
Richard Harris
41   Posted 27/07/2010 at 00:04:23

Report abuse

If the source is Alan Nixon ? well, he is notorious for 'inventing' the 'truth' and who in their right minds would have paid £5 million for Dan Gosling!! (I thought we were originally missing out on £4 million?) Maybe with add-ons if he was the leading goalscorer in the Premier League, won trophies at Newcastle, signed an extended contract, played a specified number of international games ? like the Rooney add-ons but without the talent and chance of achieving those targets... :0)
Jimmy Hacking
42   Posted 27/07/2010 at 00:07:08

Report abuse

Finally! we have clarity on this juicy yet baffling saga. Thank you, Oh impartial one, Dave Hodgson, for seperating the wheat from the chaff. Case closed.

Sarkiness aside, this strikes me as being one for the lad's autobiography in 15 years time.
Ste Traverse
43   Posted 27/07/2010 at 01:01:33

Report abuse

One other thing which annoyed me during this Gosling fiasco was Ian Ross coming out doing an interview on local radio proudly telling us vuvuzelas wouldn't be allowed into Goodison, yet he hasn't gave us a word on the clubs stance regarding this Gosling cock-up, which we all want to know.

Just about sums the people that run our club up and contempt they have for fans.
Matt Traynor
44   Posted 27/07/2010 at 04:13:25

Report abuse

Another interesting variety of responses. I suspect despite the title it won't be the last word.

So some don't want to believe what was written in the press, fair enough.

There would be a really easy way of addressing this. The club could make a statement.

Keep reading the tabloids then.
Liu Weixian
45   Posted 27/07/2010 at 05:18:50

Report abuse

Whether Dan Gosling is a greedy twat or 'crying schoolboy' is not really the issue here. What we should be concerned about is that Everton Football Club still refuses to clear the air. Obviously Kenwright and his cronies think that they don't need to be accountable to their stakeholders. There is no way the club can absolve itself from blame. Gosling may be a mercenary whoreson, but Kenwright is definitely scum.
Chris James
46   Posted 27/07/2010 at 08:09:16

Report abuse

Clearly Gosling and his agent were agitating for a move ? the combination of improved wages, a nice signing on fee and some likely guaranteed playing time as a big fish at a smaller club, rather than a back-up at Everton, all make perfect sense.

It's also 100% clear that the club fucked up, a written offer of just £1 more than the existing contract would have meant this could never happen and we'd have had to have a fee

The thing that I'm not clear about is why we didn't challenge the decision to try and force it to a tribunal which was completely within our rights and we have a genuine case in law with our verbal offer AND the existing contract.

The legal costs for doing so in comparison to the potential reward are/were minimal and right now I'm sure the Premier League/FA would have been keen to avoid any further bad publicity and would have tried to agree a settlement for a promising youth player.

This is where I think the club have really fallen down and I'm curious as to why. I can't believe it's just incompetence.
Stephen Kenny
47   Posted 27/07/2010 at 09:03:12

Report abuse

A young lad with a lot of uncertainty surrounding his serious injury didn't get offered a new contract by his current employer. He subsequently got an offer to secure his long-term future in the game from a different employer and accepted.

I really don't see how Super Dan can be vilified for any of this. When you put yourself in his position I'm certain to a man we would all do exactly the same. What I don't understand is why the club feel the need to either use or allow the Echo to paint the leaving player as the bad guy?

Thanks for the memories Dan that goal is and always will be in there with my best Goodison moments!
Ciarán McGlone
48   Posted 27/07/2010 at 09:11:13

Report abuse

I'm sure it'll all be explained at the AGM...
Chris Fisher
49   Posted 27/07/2010 at 10:21:39

Report abuse

I wrote to club regarding this and why nothing had been put up on the official site and I received this response.
'Chris
Thanks for your email
We are currently making no comment on this situation on the advice of our legal team.
If this does change we will of course use the Club?s official website to inform our supporters.
Regards
Mark
I think Gosling could've been a good squad player for us and it is a shame to see him leave, but what annoys me the most is that the club just won't say anything about it. They made the fuck up and that's fine if they come out and just admit it but to just say nothing makes us look stupid.

So many people have asked me 'so what went on with Gosling then?' Expecting me to have more of an idea than them as an Everton fan and they look bemused when I say, "I don't know, the club hasn't mentioned it"!

Mike Oates
50   Posted 27/07/2010 at 10:47:02

Report abuse

I totally agree with Peter Hall # 1. I said in an earlier mail that the Baz Rathbone and Dan Gosling departures were linked. I suspect that Baz wanted Dan off the field at Wolves and knew that the injury was severe and Moyes wouldn't take him off ? and the matter was solved after the season finished in some sort of heated confrontation, with the outcome being Baz walking.
Duncan McDine
51   Posted 27/07/2010 at 10:19:27

Report abuse

Rob Fox #33 - your take on the matter is about as close as I can imagine we'll ever get regarding Rathbone & Gosling.

Good observations... I can't understand how I missed the link between the two departures.
Pete North
52   Posted 27/07/2010 at 10:20:08

Report abuse

A version of events based on the statements issued by the parties :

27 May 2009: Dan tells Sky he's been offered a contract extension and will sign but is in no rush ? i.e. if he hangs on he'll get a better deal.

27 March 2010: Strategy goes down the pan when he gets serious injury at Wolves.

April 2010: Everton in quandary re: written final offer to Dan. Obligation to shareholders to get sign off by surgeon that operation fully successful and rehab can commence. Only then can offer be made committing further c£2m+?

c 12 May 2010: Crisis as it emerges that sign-off not sorted and can't be resolved until 26 May. Crisis management takes over.

c 13 May 2010: Club discover they have to wait till 26th May before making contract offer.

14 May 2010: Steve Round issues statement via club website saying Dan's injury healing well, trying to offer evidence that there are no issues and maybe making positive overtures to Dan. Meanwhile Baz is determined to be at fault and Moyes has the very unpleasant duty of terminating his old pal's contract.

15 May 2010: No contract offer received by Dan so agent starts taking soundings with other clubs whilst Dan sweats out the wait for the surgeon's final consultation.

17 May 2010: Baz's departure reported on club website.

26 May 2010: All clear given by surgeon.

c 27th May 2010 Club attempts to offer deal to Dan but dispute re: free agent status then takes over.

Surely the episode simply serves to illustrate how money rules. The club has a responsibility not to throw money away on players who will not be fit to play and the player as an employee has a responsibility to himself and family to safeguard his own future as best he can. Loyalty only comes into it on at the margins.

The tendency towards brinkmanship in contract negotiations, then the timing and severity of the injury, allied to the absence of surgeon sign off on the success of the operation all conspired to create the episode.

So Dan will only get my boos if he moves on to slag the club off, which so far he hasn't done. Steven Pienaar though, would perhaps do well to reflect on how the balance of financial power in a contract negotiation could all change in a matter of seconds.
Damian Scott
53   Posted 27/07/2010 at 12:01:41

Report abuse

My thinking on this as well is that with the new Premier League squad rules, he would not have been eligable to play for Everton until August 2011 anyway.

We have to submit a squad for August to 31 December by 1 September. He wouldn't have been in that squad as he is out with injury.

He would only be back in training in January 2011. We have to submit another squad for the second half of the season after the January transfer window closes, so for February 2011 to May 2011, I would imagine he would not have been in the 25 man squad either, so the first year of his potential new contract with Everton would have been wasted...

I think this might have purely come down to money. Say he was looking for 20 grand per week. Everton just saved themselves 1 million quid. Harsh on Gosling, but its a million in wages we could use elsewhere.
Jay Harris
54   Posted 27/07/2010 at 12:30:16

Report abuse

Stephen #47.

We're living in the mobile phone, Instant messaging and email age.

If he didn't get the contract offer in the mail, he or his agent could have been on that instantly to get the matter sorted.

It's not as if a verbal agreement hadn't already been in place.

Although EFC cocked up, deliberately or otherwise, there can be no doubt the lad saw the opportunity to screw the club.
Aiden Doyle
55   Posted 27/07/2010 at 13:08:55

Report abuse

Sorry Damian, he?s an under-21 player and doesn?t need to be be nominated as part of the ?official? squad (don?t worry; I learned the hard way too). He?ll be able to take to the field when, or if, he?s able. It also looks as though the squad limitation rule only comes in to effect for the periods between transfer windows so, even if he were older, he could still be available from January onwards.

I also find it interesting to remember all the rumours that were circulated a few months back that suggested Manchester United and / or Arsenal were interested in the boy. Had that been true, those clubs would have been expecting to compensate Everton (and, presumably, Plymouth) for the move and yet, now they won?t have to pay a penny, they?re not interested. I can?t help but feel that Gosling or, more likely, somebody close to him was trying to manipulate the club in to awarding a contract that exceeded his actual worth.
Michael Kidd
56   Posted 27/07/2010 at 14:53:04

Report abuse

Stewart and Steve 36 and 37: bang on the money.
Garry Martin
57   Posted 27/07/2010 at 15:16:03

Report abuse

The truth in this particular case is as follows.

Badly injured player that may not come back as before, however, how good was he before, well the truth is a half decent bench player capable of coming on and maybe make a slight impact.He was never going to be a regular as to many players already in his position.

The player himself however looks and see's a player who's young and a regular England youth player, he also looks over his sholuder and see's Rodweeel .who has just agreed a 25K contract over 5 years and thinks I'll have some of that.

The club put all these things together & think how much can we get for him without committing ourselves to much.The resultant being the unseen interest that would come from the north east clubs.Nett result EFC lose out on 3 maybe 4 million, however, EFC would have incured a sell on fee to Plymouth.Gosling being off the wage bill allows for bigger salaries for players that need to be kept.Gosling at 15K per week would have cost EFC nearly before he even kicked a ball in January, plus, any medical treatment that would have been incured (sports treatment do'es not come cheap !) EFC think - "we could end up under contract without return on this".

Bottom line......EFC have acted exactly how we would expect when looking after our money, operative words being CAUTION
Neil McKinney
58   Posted 27/07/2010 at 16:09:07

Report abuse

Some really interesting points of view above.

For me, there has been manipulation on both sides. The image being pushed of Gosling in "tears" is wide of the mark as far as I can tell as either him or his agent could have chased up the club re the contract and it is surprising how quick Newcastle (and it seems nobody else) were in for him following the deadline.

However, I see there's still some banging on about the fee. Why would we commit to a full contract of say £2.5m (perportedly the verbally agreed contract) so that we could secure a £500,000 poss rising to £1m fee. It's like an odds on bet, betting £25 to win a fiver.

O don't see how Sturridge can be used as an example of how we missed out on a fee because you are assuming that Newcastle wanted DG at any cost. Any mention of a fee and they would have dropped it like a dead donkey. We end up stuck with a player we only signed so we could get a fee. Doesn't sound like good business to me.

Whatever happened, I don't think we ever had a chance of getting a fee for DG unless he wasn't injured and if he wasn't injured we wouldn't have been selling.

Maybe the club are crap. Maybe they couldn't find their arse with both hands. But I really don't think we've missed out on a fee or done that badly in the end. Whether this is by luck or judgement who knows.
Michael Kenrick
59   Posted 27/07/2010 at 16:57:50

Report abuse

Sorry Ron @ #3, I was conflating "The Club" with "The Echo", it's firmly established unoffical mouthpeice.

Chris James: good questions aboout the tribunal. Seems it was in fact Gosling who pushed for the tribunal as a means of confirming his contract status after the downer of not getting the offer in writing that he'd been expecting and discussing for months.

Seems it was at that tribunal that the Premier League were particularly hard on Everton, punishing them with regard to the development fee by agreeing that Gosling was a free agent, and that (presumably) Everton had lost the chance of a development fee by allowing his contract to lapse. I think that's why no appeal was lodged.

But if Everton's intent was to let him go anyway, why even bother with attending the tribunal? Was that all a pretence? No, they were "seething" at the tribunal (a) because they'd fucked up; (b) because their fuck-up had been exposed; (c) because they really thought they were covered with a verbal agreement going forward; (d) because they were losing a player for whom they should have had a development fee.


So they didn't really want to give him a new contract...(understandable) but they didn't really want him to leave either. They perhaps expected him to go week to week on a verbal agreement? Wait and see if his knee really got better. Assume the young lad would be happy with that... After all, he was looking forward to his two-year extension... no harm in waiting then? He hasn't given any indication he'd be looking to leave...

Pete North: great timeline ? I was thinking of putting that together... and extending it a little further. But you are right: everything had already fallen apart by the end of May; we don't get hear nuffink until early July!!! Here are my additional timeline items:


April/May: Gosling reminds club that contract expires end of June; verbally promised an extension? Wage increase from £8k to £15k ? True or False? Gosling stalls on the deal, looking for assurances and more money (Telegraph)... true or false?

May 21: Nothing received in writing... Gosling in tears. But would Everton knowingly risk the development fee by deliberately not giving him some sort of contract offer in writing? That's the cock-up that makes absolutely no sense. Did they really think a verbal agreement was okay? So close to the expiry date of the contract? When they make such a song and dance about getting other players signed up one or two YEARS ahead of their contracts ending.

From this point on, you can imagine the relationship between player and club only getting worse over the next FIVE WEEKS (before any word of this fiasco creeps out), during which time, the agent figures out what he can do for the player (Sure, he may have already hatched his Newcastle plan). Presumably it is in this timeframe that the tribunal occurs. Seems Gosling's side want the tribunal so that they can declare him a free agent.

Everton 'lose' this acrimonious hearing and Gosling can walk away a free agent on June 30, with no development fee. Everton suitably pissed as they clearly fucked up... even if they had reservations about the player's future fitness. Everton can appeal but obviously don't because the ruling is presumably so clear-cut.

July 7: Everton confirm an improved offer was made (BBC) around the end of June ? presumably far too late, as the Newcastle plan was already hatched. Was that rather belated offer just for show? Part of the ploy of making the player the bad guy, shafting Everton for the fee and going for more money? Perfect scapegoating.

All the angst people feel against Gosling developed, I believe due to actions of the Club that preceded that critical date in mid to late May. Surely that is the key part of the story?

I just can't get on board this bandwagon of beating up the "little shit" for crapping on the club, when it seems that it was the Club who dumped him in a world of uncertainty in the first place (to protect their own limited resources). When that gamble backfired, they chose to vilify him through the Echo with no recognition of the error in judgement they had made, and been caught out for.

All along, this cock-up could have been completely avoided, and there would be no story whatsoever, if Everton had simply put their offer in writing.


Postscript

I see that finally the club has just come out with an official statement to specifically refute some of the inferences in the original story that appeared in The People. Consequently, I'm closing this thread and switching to a new one that includes that full statement.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the Editors' Blog, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb


Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at TheFreeBetGuide.com



Recent Articles





Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links

OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.