mod hero Posted 13 August 2022 Posted 13 August 2022 21 minutes ago, reynard said: is this guy any worse than Amartey? Yes 1
Guest Lcfc82 Posted 13 August 2022 Posted 13 August 2022 34 minutes ago, reynard said: is this guy any worse than Amartey? As bad as each other.
murphy Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 On 13/08/2022 at 19:15, reynard said: is this guy any worse than Amartey? Worse and slower.
davieG Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 On 13/08/2022 at 18:49, HarryDee8 said: So the reality is, our transfer policy is x amount of players out before we can recruit . It's now getting to the point that it's too late to do any business and your not going to bed any new players. It could take months Depends on the player, their experience / where they've played before for example Cucurella has slotted straight in at Chelsea seemingly displacing Chilwell
Vardinio'sCat Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 30k less a week, no wonder he wasn't interested.
CrispinLA in Texas Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 Just now, Vardinio'sCat said: 30k less a week, no wonder he wasn't interested. So he's wants to sit on the bench for 3 years because the money we pay pay him is more, doesn't he realize the financial problems he's causing this club
cropstonfox Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 Who ever sanctioned this signing and Contract is guilty of gross negligence. 2
Pinkman Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 1 minute ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: So he's wants to sit on the bench for 3 years because the money we pay pay him is more, doesn't he realize the financial problems he's causing this club As much as I think he's sh*t, it's the club's fault. Would you leave if you were on a salary that far exceeded your ability? 4
filbertway Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 5 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: So he's wants to sit on the bench for 3 years because the money we pay pay him is more, doesn't he realize the financial problems he's causing this club Ultimately not his problem. If we weren't demanding such a ridiculous fee for a clearly awful defender then they'd probably match his wages. 2
JimJams Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 7 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: So he's wants to sit on the bench for 3 years because the money we pay pay him is more, doesn't he realize the financial problems he's causing this club Aren't we all slating Barcelona for saying similar things about their situation? 2 1
CrispinLA in Texas Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 (edited) We pay him 80k and Fulham offer is 50k aweek and he gets to play every week......what's your problem Ves? The sad thing is no one is going to better Fulham's offer cos he awful......why does he want to stay here if the club don't want him! Looks like we're stuck with him 😠 Edited 15 August 2022 by CrispinLA in Texas
Guest nathan. Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 He knows his best years have gone and so do the club. He will be here for the duration of his contract because no team will match his wages.
Fazzer 7 Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, cropstonfox said: Who ever sanctioned this signing and Contract is guilty of gross negligence. Got to be Rudkin surely. Though wouldn’t it still be better for us to let him go Fulham and we make up his salary. 30k a week is better than 80. Also put in a clause that he must play against us. Thereby giving us an advantage. Edited 15 August 2022 by Fazzer 7 2
surrifox Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 12 minutes ago, cropstonfox said: Who ever sanctioned this signing and Contract is guilty of gross negligence. Presumably that living embodiment of the Peter Principle , Congerton
Dahnsouff Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 8 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: We pay him 80k and Fulham offer is 50k aweek and he gets to play every week......what's your problem Ves? The sad thing is no one is going to better Fulham's offer cos he awful......why does he want to stay here if the club don't want him! Looks like we're stuck with him 😠 Surely it is not so cut and dried, otherwise we take the 30k a week to subsidise his wages and he is gone and can still get a preferred player in on wages of 50k, no? 1
VictorFox Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 Can’t believe we agreed to pay people like him and soumare 80k a week..and yet some people still praise Rudkin as some transfer genius
CrispinLA in Texas Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said: Surely it is not so cut and dried, otherwise we take the 30k a week to subsidise his wages and he is gone and can still get a preferred player in on wages of 50k, no? 9 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said: Got to be Rudkin surely. Though wouldn’t it still be better for us to let him go Fulham and we make up his salary. 30k a week is better than 80. Also put in a clause that he must play against us. Thereby giving us an advantage. Why should we subsidize his salary? It's not a loan, he's never coming back here!
Hitesh Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 1 minute ago, VictorFox said: Can’t believe we agreed to pay people like him and soumare 80k a week..and yet some people still praise Rudkin as some transfer genius We were in a bit of a desperate situation with Vesty. Agreed with Soumare though
Dahnsouff Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 1 minute ago, VictorFox said: Can’t believe we agreed to pay people like him and soumare 80k a week..and yet some people still praise Rudkin as some transfer genius A few bad moves but plenty of good/decent, positive on balance I reckon, but would rather he made better on the exits, that’s for sure.
st albans fox Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: Why should we subsidize his salary? It's not a loan, he's never coming back here! because we need his salary off the books so we can get someone else in We should just accepted Fulham would pay the additional £3m wages and taken it off the transfer fee the fact that we didn’t is either because we are confident of a loan deal where someone will pay half his wages plus a loan fee (but that’s not sensible because he only has a year left next summer so any fee will be suppressed) OR we didn’t want to set a precedent on wages when we have so many players we would like to sell Edited 15 August 2022 by st albans fox 2
Dahnsouff Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 1 minute ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: Why should we subsidize his salary? It's not a loan, he's never coming back here! Ok, he stays then and see’s out his contract we handed him, and keeps his full wage and squad spot. Happy now? 1
Babylon Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 17 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: We pay him 80k and Fulham offer is 50k aweek and he gets to play every week......what's your problem Ves? The sad thing is no one is going to better Fulham's offer cos he awful......why does he want to stay here if the club don't want him! Looks like we're stuck with him 😠 Perhaps he’d rather not uproot his family again. These people are humans as well. 1
JimmyC74 Posted 15 August 2022 Posted 15 August 2022 23 minutes ago, CrispinLA in Texas said: We pay him 80k and Fulham offer is 50k aweek and he gets to play every week......what's your problem Ves? The sad thing is no one is going to better Fulham's offer cos he awful......why does he want to stay here if the club don't want him! Looks like we're stuck with him 😠 Position may still change once he considers the harm he is doing to his WC selection prospects. 1
Recommended Posts