Beattie again

[Lighthouse]

There is a long piece in Sporting Life on line  about James Beattie. The last few paragraphs deal with what went on during our transfer dealings. Sorry if this has been done to death.

The incidents that occurred on transfer deadline weekend indicate the results of not shouting and screaming to get your own way are less than if you act in a negative manner. The following is from a source within the club who wishes to remain anonymous. The willingness to speak out suggests a divide of support toward Beattie among the Stoke employees.

Stoke City had received interest in James Beattie during the transfer window from Fulham, Sunderland, and Blackburn. While the interest lingered it is commonly known that the end of the transfer window and deadline day rush is where most deals are finalized. As an estimate of the thirty million pounds spent in the window, twenty million was spent on the last day so any competent club would be staffed and aware during the last days of the window.

Fulham in particular showed interest in Beattie and on the Saturday Fulham Chief Executive Alistair McIntosh had been in phone conversation with his Stoke counterpart Tony Scholes. Scholes was made fully aware of the Fulham interest. Fulham officials reported Scholes was impossible to contact Saturday night after apparently shutting off his phone. The same problem was reported on Sunday night. Why was the chief executive out of contact at such a crucial time?

The conduct of Stoke became even more questionable on the Sunday when Scholes apparently reported to agents that no offer had been submitted by Fulham. Unbeknownst to Scholes the agents were aware he was recorded on the phone by Fulham on Saturday night declining an offer. Is this an acceptable way to treat an employee?

On Monday morning text messages were sent by Stoke to Fulham stating the offer was under consideration. Less than an hour later the offer was accepted. There was however one problem. James Beattie was in Sunderland with the Stoke team. Just why James had travelled to Sunderland can be questioned for a number of reasons;

· Stoke were aware a club in London was interested in signing Beattie.

· Stoke had been warned by multiple sources of the logistical issues surrounding Beattie travelling north.

· Stoke were aware of the 5pm deadline when the transfer would need to be finalised by.

· James Beattie had not trained all week, so was the intention really for him to be involved or merely to ruin a transfer? Stoke made three substitutions in the game without Beattie appearing, this despite Stoke not scoring in the game or even threatening much.

In the end time ran out and Beattie was denied a move, left to play for an irrational and sporadically violent manager. So in today's climate if you are a professional footballer looking for a move, is the way to go about it to act professionally and get your head down working through. Not if you play for Stoke City it's not... apparently.

[Lighthouse]

So with the above in mind I think I can stop blaming Fulham although why did we leave it as late as we did? But it goes to show that at least it wasn't all Fulhams fault.

[TonyGilroy]

If all that's true then we were ready to do business on Saturday but Stoke, for whatever reason, stopped the deal going through.

They switch their phones off and then drive the player to Sunderland. It seems they didn't want to sell and didn't want Beattie to know what was happening.

[Jimpav]

An interesting article.

Part of me suspects that Stoke took a "Dog in the manger" approach and stopped us from taking Beattie, much in the same way that Spurs refuse to sell to PL clubs that could be a threat to their own interests. Hence Pavluychenko has got splinters in his arse and Robbie Keane has been shipped off to the wastlelands of Glasgow.