Svlad CjelliVision
I'd say that actually Gylfi is the former and Long is the latter.
McD made a big point of saying that Glyfi's sale secured the future of the club whatever that meant. Thats not to say he was forced out of course but as Hoop Blah says it's not "cloud cuckoo land" to suggest he wouldn't have stayed if we'd have really convinced him we wanted him too. It was too much money for us to say no,it was desperately needed (black hole and all that) and it's not too much of a stretch to say that had some bearing in Glyfi's decision.
Long is different in that although we didn't desperately need the money we really couldn't stand in his way.
I agree that the timescales were completely different - with Long everyone knew it was inevitable that he would leave this summer for month, but with Gylfi the whole process took just a couple of days.
The offer came in for Gylfi (about a season earlier than was expected), the offer was put to him and he accepted it. He was offered good terms, a place with a team in the best League in Europe, and the best of coaching in a country famous for the quality of its youth development. He knew that he might break his leg the next week, and it's not as if he is a local lad brought up playing football on the streets of Whitley - we were only ever a stepping-stone on his career.
Why would he turn that opportunity down - and would you in his situation?
And would it really be right or ethical for the club to try and make him turn down such a phenomenal opportunity being offered to Gylfi. At the time it was clearly much better for his long-term career than anything we could offer. And if we had strong-armed him into playing, how would he have played for us the next season - Sidwellesque or Shoreyesque - no way of knowing that one.
"Strong-armed" is a bit extreme isn't it? There's a massive gap between "forcing someone to stay" and "forcing someone out the door". As I've said I don't think we were as desperate to keep him as you're suggesting given how we spoke after the sale was made about how essential it was for our business model to sell to cover the financial shortfal That's not to say we weren't sorry to see him go or that we'd have been unhappy if he'd have stayed but it would have left us looking for other ways to cover our shortfall.
I'm still not convinced at signing for Hoffenheim being A) quite the "phenomenal opportunity" you think or B) being that much better for his long term development than another season with us but thats just a judgment call I guess.
I know it seems like I'm radically disagreeing with you and Wimb but I'm not really, I just don't think every case and in particular the Gylffi situation is quite as clear cut as some people state. (That and the fact that I'm bored at work and have some time to play a bit of Devil's Advocate this morning )