[fishini]

azul, on Jan 5 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

Are you suggesting our chairman is a clueless bumbling buffon

There you go again standing up for him and making him out to be better than he really is. In future please tell it how it really is

MP-Spire, on Jan 5 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

Boot,

I was told that one of the major reasons Macca got the bullet was because he didn't make use of the finance made available to him. Can you confirm?

Whats worst not using whats available or wasting what is given to you?

[spiriteboy]

spireiteblue, on Jan 5 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Roy MacFarland in one of his SW interviews actually said the fee was £95,000 was there only me that heard that ?

no it was 95k

[Wooden Spoon]

MP-Spire, on Jan 5 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

Boot,

I was told that one of the major reasons Macca got the bullet was because he didn't make use of the finance made available to him. Can you confirm?

But was it enough?

[spiriteboy]

MP-Spire, on Jan 5 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

Spiriteboy,

Got a little problem with Wardy & parity. Lets say the top whack is £2,500 a week. Why the F would Wardy be prepared to sign for parity at CFC, when he could go and double his money elsewhere?

Cos thats what he asked for parity and he signs, (have u not read this anywhere) no more, So why the F did we not give it him and have more bargaining power when we come to sell

[Larkin around]

death, on Jan 5 2009, 08:47 PM, said:

But was it enough?

Makes for a strange situation whereby the board seemed distinctively firm and bold by sacking Roy Mac (wrong decision or not), but every action since has been dealt with with utter contempt and unprofessionalism.

The acknowledgement for their costumers is beyond patronising.

[spiriteboy]

azul, on Jan 5 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

I wouldn't spend it just yet.

If you listen to Hubbard's pre-xmas interview he said he wouldn't sell Ward for £250K as Torquay would get £65K.

Thats 25% of the full transfer.

Are you suggesting our chairman is a clueless bumbling buffon


I wouldn't spend it just yet.

If you listen to Hubbard's pre-xmas interview he said he wouldn't sell Ward for £250K as Torquay would get £65K.

Thats 25% of the full transfer.
Are you suggesting our chairman is a clueless bumbling buffon

Looks like i,m owed a quid

[gwast]

Only going on what the agent said in interview but he did mention that the fee was £400k and torquay are entitled to 25% of that which still gives us £300k. This is what I heard in the part of the interview i listened to.

This post has been edited by norrisisgod: 05 January 2009 - 08:58 PM

[fishini]

MurrayBu, on Jan 5 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Makes for a strange situation whereby the board seemed distinctively firm and bold by sacking Roy Mac (wrong decision or not), but every action since has been dealt with with utter contempt and unprofessionalism.

The acknowledgement for their costumers is beyond patronising.

We are the worst club in the respect of the contempt shown to its supporters by our chairman and board they can't even be bothered to tell us the truth about anything

[Bankrobber]

spiriteboy, on Jan 5 2009, 08:51 PM, said:

Cos thats what he asked for parity and he signs, (have u not read this anywhere) no more, So why the F did we not give it him and have more bargaining power when we come to sell

I'm struggling to get my head round that, frankly.

We made Wardy an offer, and whether it was parity or not (do you really believe what an agent says?), he didn't want to sign it. No probs with that - any player worth his salt should want to do better for himself than play for a struggling L2 club.

What was interesting is how, why and how quickly today's news made the local media.

[Larkin around]

MP-Spire, on Jan 5 2009, 09:12 PM, said:

Hey Spiriteboy,

What did you make of the bit where Gino stated, Jamie & I speak on a daily basis? Do you think that's as a result of him being on the market or would this be typical of agent/client contact?

Personally, I liked David Batty's approach. He used a solicitor, on a as and when basis.

Agents are warts on footballs bottom.

It wasn't too long ago where a player like Jamie Ward would represent himself.

Arise, Sir Jack of Lester.

[moondog]

Bankrobber, on Jan 5 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

I'm struggling to get my head round that, frankly.

We made Wardy an offer, and whether it was parity or not (do you really believe what an agent says?), he didn't want to sign it. No probs with that - any player worth his salt should want to do better for himself than play for a struggling L2 club.

What was interesting is how, why and how quickly today's news made the local media.

As previously stated this parity talk is nonsense no way would ward be content with a deal tying himself to us for 3 years

[spireite boy on tour]

i believe that on saturday we should just sing alot about jamie ward because he deserves it. He always claps us fans at away games and he has been such a good player for us this season so cmon boys lets show him the support he deserves to help us beat the dale!!

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on Jan 5 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

Then, maybe the fact that he's publicly stated the Club did not offer parity with those enjoying long contracts at top wack tells us it must be correct, otherwise there'd be a lawsuit heading his way from someone at CFC.

Finally, i think Barnsley's offer is far better than anything we could expect at a tribunal, so, given the Club's failure to secure Ward's signature on a new deal, we've no option but to accept it. Unless Derby or Norwich are prepared to 'gazump' the Tykes, of course.

so now we do some maths examples.
If we had offered him a two year deal before xmas, as you suggested, we would have been writing off £400k + £100k + top wages if he had signed it. BAD DEAL.
And then, who's to say that the 'parity' is not with Caleb's contract?. Did the agent actually say that the parity was with current players?. In which case, if he had signed and then goes to Barnsley, you might be paying Ward £100k out of the £400k. BAD DEAL.

We have a written £400k bid in ,and we can still offer offer him top whack very long term deal in May, which we know the agent is bound to turn down. Suddenly the tribunal angle doesn't seem so bad. Don't panic. We hold the aces and we can get just the deal we want.

[Rodg]

MP-Spire, on Jan 5 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

At least Wardy is a class act. It's when you get players like Jamie Jackson with an agent, I think Varadi represented him!

Agents, parity with other big earners at the club, its all immaterial, we have been offered £400K for a fast small striker who is playing at his level, Championship probably a step to far, but the club make good money even with the sell on clause, probably £300k so clearing £200K profit.
This might help make up for the gates being down.
I think we are still trying to dress the club up for a sale. BH and MW need to find a buyer they have bank loans secured against them, if the club goes into administration they have to pay the loans back, who has that sort of money today.
Its all about selling the club, BH and MW are desperate to get out but without a huge loss.
In today,s football world small clubs are finished, If they find a buyer great, but why would anyone with the sort of money required, invest in a club like ours, they can make no return on the millions of pounds required to run and build the club.
The ground is simply window dressing to generate interest for a sale, a few thousand for planning applications its seed corn.
The only thing being built on Dema is Tesco, the two builds are not joined at the hip, one can be built in advance of the other, its happening already.
I hope I am wildly wrong, that the investor is in the wings and Rico is sacked tomorrow, but I have a bad feeling about the future of our club.