




Ohhhh! FFS it's like saying "Bumble Bee's Can't Fly"
because we all know they can!!!
Even though science tells us they cannot!
And if ever Proof were needed!!
The numpties on there were trying to argue it was a shrewd policy.rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:01 pmThis was on sky sports news earlier and had since seen it on twatter, bat shit Bohely we want you to stay![]()
Combined years of players' contracts remaining for Premier League clubs:
1). Chelsea - 191 years
2). Tottenham - 97 years
3). Brighton- 96 years
4). Wolves - 83 years
5). Man Utd - 82 years
BobbyPires7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:20 pmThe numpties on there were trying to argue it was a shrewd policy.rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:01 pmThis was on sky sports news earlier and had since seen it on twatter, bat shit Bohely we want you to stay![]()
Combined years of players' contracts remaining for Premier League clubs:
1). Chelsea - 191 years
2). Tottenham - 97 years
3). Brighton- 96 years
4). Wolves - 83 years
5). Man Utd - 82 years![]()
He means on skyaugie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:54 pmBobbyPires7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:20 pmThe numpties on there were trying to argue it was a shrewd policy.rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:01 pmThis was on sky sports news earlier and had since seen it on twatter, bat shit Bohely we want you to stay![]()
Combined years of players' contracts remaining for Premier League clubs:
1). Chelsea - 191 years
2). Tottenham - 97 years
3). Brighton- 96 years
4). Wolves - 83 years
5). Man Utd - 82 years![]()
I'd love to know who you are talking about cos I have never seen anyone on here praising the chavs transfer policies
The numpties on Sky Sports News… Dharmesh Sheth or Kaveh Solekhol, the other clown they have on there. One of them was saying they can see the logic to it is they tie down talent for long term on lower than standard wages. I had to laugh.augie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:54 pmBobbyPires7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:20 pmThe numpties on there were trying to argue it was a shrewd policy.rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:01 pmThis was on sky sports news earlier and had since seen it on twatter, bat shit Bohely we want you to stay![]()
Combined years of players' contracts remaining for Premier League clubs:
1). Chelsea - 191 years
2). Tottenham - 97 years
3). Brighton- 96 years
4). Wolves - 83 years
5). Man Utd - 82 years![]()
I'd love to know who you are talking about cos I have never seen anyone on here praising the chavs transfer policies
To be fair I also read it as here.rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:16 pmAugie, you’re the angriest person I know. You’d start a fucking argument in a phone box![]()
I think uswilson beats him when he reads the DZ word.rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:16 pmAugie, you’re the angriest person I know. You’d start a fucking argument in a phone box![]()
rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:01 pmThis was on sky sports news earlier and had since seen it on twatter, bat shit Bohely we want you to stay![]()
Combined years of players' contracts remaining for Premier League clubs:
1). Chelsea - 191 years
2). Tottenham - 97 years
3). Brighton- 96 years
4). Wolves - 83 years
5). Man Utd - 82 years
the playing mantis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 4:54 pmI think the club are meant to be moving to incentivised contracts more which is the norm for big clubs. I may have just made that up though!Retro Gunner wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 4:46 pmthe playing mantis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 4:03 pmBut sacking is different to selling retro. See my points about terminations. That would involve paying up unless mutually agreed.
If clubs had an obligation to pay a sold players contract there would not be thr need to top up which occasionally happens or contract quibbles because a player would be getting there big fat old wage and a new one too.
Also if that was the case then the fact we put crap on big fat contracts and they don't want to leave wouldn't make any difference as based on augie and your take we would have to pay them that when sold anyway.
Edit you bogarde point is valid but that was about terminating. They couldn't sell him as no-one would pay him the same. If selling a player still kept the selling club liable to pay his contract then he would surely have happily moved as chavs would have paid him his contract term and his new club would have paid him whatever they agreed too.
As soon as a player is sold and signs for another club be it after a transfer request or not, as redarmy says his contract with legacy club is done.
There may be special cases where the seller has to top up the guys wages for a bit to make sure he accepts the move. Much like a loan where the loaner can only afford a portion of wages...the seller must weight up the benefit of getting rid vs the extra cost of topping up the wages. This is the issue we likely have...other clubs simply cannot afford to pay thr crap we pay dross thus the dross doesn't want to move.
Yep, some good points Mantis.
The issue with overpaying second rate players is a point that augie and I have made previously. It's a huge obstacle to selling them, regardless of paying up a contract or not and it's something we need to correct. I might be wrong, but I've a feeling that in the past we've valued a player at, for arguments sake, 30 million, but have had to agree to 20 or 25, so that the buying club can give the player a huge signing on fee to make up for the lower wages they'll pay him. Of course, it's us paying the signing on fee by reducing the asking price.
Anyway, it's all indicative of our shambolic transfer dealings. I'm sure every club finds themselves in a similar mess occasionally, but we seem to make a habit of it and never learn.
Lower base wage topped up by achievable bonuses which should in theory mean getting rid is easier as lower base wage and in thr interests of the player not to be shit. Eddie's 100k a week and absolute phoning it in would cast doubt on that however!
Anyway let's get back on topic. And moan about lack of striker...I just hope Bobby is right and the surprise could be toney. I know it won't happen as he's too much of a 'charachter'.
rodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:16 pmAugie, you’re the angriest person I know. You’d start a fucking argument in a phone box![]()
I hope you don't take our debate as digging out. It's all meant in respectful discussion terms augie!augie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:50 pmrodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:16 pmAugie, you’re the angriest person I know. You’d start a fucking argument in a phone box![]()
I wasnt being angry nor aggressive but I was maybe being a little paranoid - I read it as someone on here said it (apologies BP7) and I feel lately that I am dug out on here more than most, so maybe thought this was such a case![]()
![]()
![]()
the playing mantis wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 7:08 pmI hope you don't take our debate as digging out. It's all meant in respectful discussion terms augie!augie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:50 pmrodders999 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:16 pmAugie, you’re the angriest person I know. You’d start a fucking argument in a phone box![]()
I wasnt being angry nor aggressive but I was maybe being a little paranoid - I read it as someone on here said it (apologies BP7) and I feel lately that I am dug out on here more than most, so maybe thought this was such a case![]()
![]()
![]()
Although you all fill a role on here we'll you regulars do.
Db10, perverted dwarf, obg slightly less perverted dwarf, Stuart flip flop, Bobby itk villager, retro sense and misery, red old skool no nonsense, rodders welcome toilet humor, perry articulate calling it as it is, angry glass empty augie, lunatic conspiracy theorist uswilson, superfan nuttie, t's an ecosystem carefully balanced.
Got bored now so apols the rest not mentioned