Jace Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Even if that is the case (and we don't know for sure), the £1+ million figure bandied about isn't just for Pearson. We already know that you posted that a few minutes ago
Matt Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 We best batter these northern ***** in a few weeks time! That cliched phrase "Sooner or later we are going to hammer someone" can it please be that game.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 I hope this sorry mess gets sorted out soon
look_back_in_amber Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Am I the only 1 that think he shouldn't pay up? if Pearson's contract get out clause is £700000 then we shouldn't be paying 1 million. If it was my money I wouldn't. How do you think teams would treat us in the transfer market when they know our owners will pay over the odds every time. Hull fans won't want him anymore anyway so they are screwed if we back down. Well done Top don't be a mug No, you're one of quite a few that obviously wasn't very good at maths at school. We agreed a release for Pearson however he then said that he wanted Shakey & Walsh to go with him, let's face it I'm sure that it's the one thing that we can ALL agree on that he'd struggle without those two, and they allegedly earn £175K per year or £14,583 per month each, so multiply the latter figure by 2 and then multiply it again by 20 months which is the remainder of their contract, and you'll find that equates to a further required payment of £583.320. In summary, if you want your management team back the amount required is £650,000 plus £583.320 making a grand total of £1,233,320, and, as others have said, if your owners value them so highly what is the problem, this is not a large amount of money if they are confident that these people are the ones to take you back to the promised land, or maybe they're not that confident and that's where the REAL problem is
21st Century Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 It would seem quite apparent that theres more to this an we know, otherwise itd be sorted. If it were a matter of a few hundred thousand pounds the Thais would have paid up because their whole investment hangs on us getting promoted, they aren't going to quibble over such a small amount if it means the possibilty of pay out millions more after another season in the Championship. They're successful businessmen!!
look_back_in_amber Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 There were also rumours of Hull agreeing a price for all of them and then changing their minds and asking for more. If that is the case, then I think we should stand our ground a bit. Link????
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Cant we just keep on looking around? Mark Hughes, Martin O'God etc etc
Happy Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Cant we just keep on looking around? Mark Hughes, Martin O'God etc etc Maybe we are who knows?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 We'd never have this trouble if we'd gone for Keane
Jace Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 No, you're one of quite a few that obviously wasn't very good at maths at school. We agreed a release for Pearson however he then said that he wanted Shakey & Walsh to go with him, let's face it I'm sure that it's the one thing that we can ALL agree on that he'd struggle without those two, and they allegedly earn £175K per year or £14,583 per month each, so multiply the latter figure by 2 and then multiply it again by 20 months which is the remainder of their contract, and you'll find that equates to a further required payment of £583.320. In summary, if you want your management team back the amount required is £650,000 plus £583.320 making a grand total of £1,233,320, and, as others have said, if your owners value them so highly what is the problem, this is not a large amount of money if they are confident that these people are the ones to take you back to the promised land, or maybe they're not that confident and that's where the REAL problem is Don't be a dickhead I'm very good at maths I didn't know realise the dispute was over Shakepeares and Walshs contracts I thought it was only over Pearsons. I fully admit I don't know all the details of what the dispute is I don't think many on here will all my point was I admired Top and the board for not giving in to Hulls demands £300k is still alot of money to many people
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Maybe we are who knows? i hope we are, dont get me wrong im not against NP coming back but surely we must have more than this one stalemate option?
Happy Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 i hope we are, dont get me wrong im not against NP coming back but surely we must have more than this one stalemate option? I would have thought so if this deal falls through we must have an alternative option
m00nie Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 No, you're one of quite a few that obviously wasn't very good at maths at school. We agreed a release for Pearson however he then said that he wanted Shakey & Walsh to go with him, let's face it I'm sure that it's the one thing that we can ALL agree on that he'd struggle without those two, and they allegedly earn £175K per year or £14,583 per month each, so multiply the latter figure by 2 and then multiply it again by 20 months which is the remainder of their contract, and you'll find that equates to a further required payment of £583.320. In summary, if you want your management team back the amount required is £650,000 plus £583.320 making a grand total of £1,233,320, and, as others have said, if your owners value them so highly what is the problem, this is not a large amount of money if they are confident that these people are the ones to take you back to the promised land, or maybe they're not that confident and that's where the REAL problem is considering none of us know what is REALLY happening behind the scenes its a bit rich to try and act all superior.. you can assume and guess what has/has not been agreed, what figures are correct etc but seeing as everything they have done so far has been hush hush what makes yoy think this is any different.... people need to sit back, chill, enjoy the weekend,, cant see much being done over it.. Bert has said should be tuesday which seems a good logic. so lets just wait and see....
AoWW Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 We'd never have this trouble if we'd gone for Keane *slap*
Jace Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 considering none of us know what is REALLY happening behind the scenes its a bit rich to try and act all superior.. you can assume and guess what has/has not been agreed, what figures are correct etc but seeing as everything they have done so far has been hush hush what makes yoy think this is any different.... people need to sit back, chill, enjoy the weekend,, cant see much being done over it.. Bert has said should be tuesday which seems a good logic. so lets just wait and see.... Cheers mate dunno what is problem is I didn't even speculate any figures?
Walshy5 Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 considering none of us know what is REALLY happening behind the scenes its a bit rich to try and act all superior.. you can assume and guess what has/has not been agreed, what figures are correct etc but seeing as everything they have done so far has been hush hush what makes yoy think this is any different.... people need to sit back, chill, enjoy the weekend,, cant see much being done over it.. Bert has said should be tuesday which seems a good logic. so lets just wait and see.... Why do people always take what bert says as gospel?! Fair enough he does get alot of things right and i appreciate his input but he has been wrong on occasions!
m00nie Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Why do people always take what bert says as gospel?! Fair enough he does get alot of things right and i appreciate his input but he has been wrong on occasions! SEEMS seem [seem] Show IPA verb (used without object) 1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning. 2. to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling. 3. to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now. 4. to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
ScouseFox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 This still happening or what? Missed the past 15 or so pages. Fill me in, thnx.
AoWW Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 This still happening or what? Missed the past 15 or so pages. Fill me in, thnx. Maybe, maybe not.
lcfcnoely Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 This still happening or what? Missed the past 15 or so pages. Fill me in, thnx. Still no closer to agreeing compensation apparently.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Still no closer to agreeing compensation apparently. Apparently the compensation thing revolves around a goldfish in NP's office
ScouseFox Posted 12 November 2011 Posted 12 November 2011 Decent, so just the same as it was on Thursday when I last checked. This has stopped being excited and become pretty annoying, really. Hull are shit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.