[Westbars Spireite]

100K confirmed loss then.

[Tips M'Gee]

Agreed Eddie, as long as they don't slag us off who cares?

[Eddie63]

Old Gregg, on Jun 6 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Agreed Eddie, as long as they don't slag us off who cares?

we dont need anyone slaging us off we can do it for ourselfs lol

[S18Spireite]

WESTBARS SPIREITE, on Jun 6 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

100K confirmed loss then.

You can't lose what you never had.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

spireiteblue, on Jun 6 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

Fletcher is a top guy,Leven is scum,i don't know the ins and outs but he did the dirty on us,that is my way of thinking anyway.

Blimey - bit extreme, SB!

Look, Leven told everyone from the start that he'd only stay a year unless we were promoted. Fair play to him, at least he was open and honest. Now given that, he should've been sold in Jan, but because Richardson couldn't get a replacement and/or we were ordinary in midfield even with his presence, the Club lost out on a significant wedge. Was that his fault, or the management's for not forseeing such a turn of events and having a plan B? He's now been offered the opportunity to play at a higher level, on a far better "stage" and, presumably, to his financial advantage.

Ultimately, you can't blame him for going.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 06 June 2008 - 05:57 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

spireiteblue, on Jun 6 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

It is all still ifs and buts,you are just guessing you don't know the full facts,did he want to go to Brighton ?

You'd better tell me all the facts, then.

Or are you labelling him "Scum" based on guesses and rumour?

[richrichard]

Good riddance if he wants to join that lot

Hope Ince leaves and they come straight back down, passing us on the way up...

[Westbars Spireite]

S18Spireite, on Jun 6 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

You can't lose what you never had.

We should have had it, indeed said no thanks, so therefore we have lost what we could have had.

[Frank Thacker]

spireiteblue, on Jun 6 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

Leven is scum

A bit harsh, perhaps? Especially considering

Quote

i don't know the ins and outs

spireiteblue, on Jun 6 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

Where we went wrong we should have said a 2 year deal or nothing

Fair enough, but his fitness still needed proving, to me; I'd have been a bit hacked off if we'd offered a two year deal to a crock.

I was in favour of taking the money at the time but I can see that the club took a gamble on Leven providing a lead in the (albeit shaky, at the time) promotion effort.

Quote

They promised him a wage then cut the offer when they offered contract so why People have ago wish they would get the facts right!!

I thought the fact was that they/we offered him a deal and gave him a deadline with the proviso that, after the deadline, the first deal would lapse and be replaced by a less lucrative one. A good idea, I thought, after we were fannied about with by Hall and Larkin last summer. Had we not set the deadlinbe we'd probably still be wondering on June 30th - as it is we can set about replacing him sooner.

[Sherman]

WESTBARS SPIREITE, on Jun 6 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

We should have had it, indeed said no thanks, so therefore we have lost what we could have had.

Whatever is the point of going on about this.

At the time, a decision was made not to sell and made for the right reason - that we were in with a good shout of going up and he was likely to play an important part in that. The fact that we didn't make it doesn't make that a bad decision, just an unfortunate outturn of events.

You could analyse every transfer decision until the cows come home with the wonderful benefit of hindsight. Time everyone moved on from this.

[sammythespire]

Saltergate Stu, on Jun 6 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

A bit harsh, perhaps? Especially considering



Fair enough, but his fitness still needed proving, to me; I'd have been a bit hacked off if we'd offered a two year deal to a crock.

I was in favour of taking the money at the time but I can see that the club took a gamble on Leven providing a lead in the (albeit shaky, at the time) promotion effort.


I thought the fact was that they/we offered him a deal and gave him a deadline with the proviso that, after the deadline, the first deal would lapse and be replaced by a less lucrative one. A good idea, I thought, after we were fannied about with by Hall and Larkin last summer. Had we not set the deadlinbe we'd probably still be wondering on June 30th - as it is we can set about replacing him sooner.

Stu i was told that in Jan he was told he would be offered 2 years and a higher wage but when the contract was down on the table it was one year and about £100 a week less than was said.
Yes is fitness needed working on but i thought that he would get better and fitter i think its a big loss.
As for some calling him Scum is like comparing him to Hudson which is Wrong!!
Hudson was SCUM.

[Wooden Spoon]

spireiteblue, on Jun 6 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

Leven is scum

Why? because he didnt show loyalty?

Where was the loyalty to AOH? Does that make CFC scum in your eyes?

Does that make Ronaldo scum?

spireiteblue, on Jun 6 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

i don't know the ins and outs but he did the dirty on us

If you dont know the ins and outs, how can you say he did the dirty?

[Wooden Spoon]

MDCCCLXVI, on Jun 6 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

Blimey - bit extreme, SB!

Look, Leven told everyone from the start that he'd only stay a year unless we were promoted. Fair play to him, at least he was open and honest. Now given that, he should've been sold in Jan, but because Richardson couldn't get a replacement and/or we were ordinary in midfield even with his presence, the Club lost out on a significant wedge. Was that his fault, or the management's for not forseeing such a turn of events and having a plan B? He's now been offered the opportunity to play at a higher level, on a far better "stage" and, presumably, to his financial advantage.

Ultimately, you can't blame him for going.

Some only see what they want to see.

[marlons curtains]

Saltergate Stu, on Jun 6 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

A bit harsh, perhaps? Especially considering



Fair enough, but his fitness still needed proving, to me; I'd have been a bit hacked off if we'd offered a two year deal to a crock.

I was in favour of taking the money at the time but I can see that the club took a gamble on Leven providing a lead in the (albeit shaky, at the time) promotion effort.


I thought the fact was that they/we offered him a deal and gave him a deadline with the proviso that, after the deadline, the first deal would lapse and be replaced by a less lucrative one. A good idea, I thought, after we were fannied about with by Hall and Larkin last summer. Had we not set the deadlinbe we'd probably still be wondering on June 30th - as it is we can set about replacing him sooner.

I find it interesting that hes only got a one year deal at franchise.. perhaps hell be leaving there if they dont go up!

[Westbars Spireite]

Sherman, on Jun 6 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

Whatever is the point of going on about this.

At the time, a decision was made not to sell and made for the right reason - that we were in with a good shout of going up and he was likely to play an important part in that. The fact that we didn't make it doesn't make that a bad decision, just an unfortunate outturn of events.

You could analyse every transfer decision until the cows come home with the wonderful benefit of hindsight. Time everyone moved on from this.

Errr because that's the point of a message board?

[Sherman]

WESTBARS SPIREITE, on Jun 6 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Errr because that's the point of a message board?

Strangely enough I understand that, but the point about the "loss" of £100k has been made time and time and time again and gets no better or worse for the constant retelling.