Grendel
Well-Known Member
You certainly are avoiding answering Daves point.
Vincelot joins Bradford (20 Viewers)
- Thread starter I_Saw_Shaw_Score
- Start date
You certainly are avoiding answering Daves point.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'll answer his when he's answered mine.
Talking of avoiding questions I've asked you twice now this evening and you still haven't answered. If it turns out that we sold RV to make way for signing Bigi will you be acceptable of it?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He asked you the first question and you avoided it like the plague but hey ho.
Of course I wouldn't want him as a replacement but given he would be on more money than vincelot it would be a management choice so irrelevant to the budget. So it's something the trust should never comment on unless you are saying they should know wages every player receives.
Even OSB acknowledges this statement is inflammatory and stupid. Don't you agree with him on this?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The trust never said anything in the slightest about wages so why you're trying to make out they did god only knows.
OSB actually said unwarranted and ill advised so again you're making out someone has said something different to what they actually said.
I don't have to agree with everything that OSB says just as I don't have to disagree with everything that you say.
Although OSB did ask a very similar question earlier today on a different thread to the trust statement.
http://skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/tm-wants-us-to-trust-him-infrastructure.66367/
FRY-CCFC
Well-Known Member
I can't be arsed to read 4 pages of drivel, why do you think this statement is necessary?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Fleck was going out the door in the summer, we knew that back in January. Vincelot was obviously part of TMs plans until the Bradford offer came in. Then Vincelot realises he can double his money and TM realises it may give him extra bargaining power within a tight budget. So yes it sort of makes sense.
However last week nobody was saying Vincelot was surplus to requirements. People were talking about a replacement for Fleck, pondering Bigi.
It is clear that Vincelot will only be a good deal if the right players come in. Having lost two contracted players in Fleck and Vincelot we need them to be replaced with contracted players, not loans.
I accept loans will be part of our team, but we still need about 4 players in on permanent deals and preferably 2 year contracts in the 25-28 year old bracket: striker, midfield, centre half and a adaptable defender.
However last week nobody was saying Vincelot was surplus to requirements. People were talking about a replacement for Fleck, pondering Bigi.
It is clear that Vincelot will only be a good deal if the right players come in. Having lost two contracted players in Fleck and Vincelot we need them to be replaced with contracted players, not loans.
I accept loans will be part of our team, but we still need about 4 players in on permanent deals and preferably 2 year contracts in the 25-28 year old bracket: striker, midfield, centre half and a adaptable defender.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's totally necessary but it is a relevant question and it is a question that a lot of fans are asking on a subject that most fans are talking about. Just see this forum for proof of that.
Personally I think this is the biggest call TM has made since he's been at the club and I don't see the issue with that call being questioned, by whoever. If a supporters trust isn't going to ask the important and difficult questions then what is it for?
I trust TM personally but I don't think he's beyond questioning. Some people have (wrongly IMO) taken this question as criticism and are trying to put slants on it that simply aren't in the statement. Suggesting that the trust have an issue with youth being brought through, the trust have an issue with not knowing wages, if the trust believe that (don't think that they've stated that they believe anything, it's a question) why don't they call for TM to resign just to name a few.
It's a lot of fuss over nothing.
FRY-CCFC
Well-Known Member
I'd say it's a question that Mogga has answered.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
No I don't agree. I think it is critical in tone, I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. And as Mowbray is making the decisions it is therefore critical of Mowbray and his management.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Then people really are getting their knickers in a twist if all the trust has done is ask a question that TM doesn't mind answering, given that he's already apparently answered it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We clearly just see the tone of the question differently. I can live with that.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I'm as annoyed as most but the trust statement is an embarrassment
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Not convinced Chiefdave. If that was the case why didn't TM transfer list him and say come and get him? I think it was just an opportunity that arose for both. Otherwise why would TM say, "We sat down and had a lengthy chat and decided it (Bradford deal) was best for both parties." There are all sorts of reasons why it would be "best" for both parties, but finances will play a big part of that. TM probably also might have a different take on the current squads strengths and weaknesses having played a few friendlies compared to the final day of the season.
We are still in the situation of time will tell. As TM says you cannot be certain until you get them (deals) over the line. So at the moment we are just another decent player down; fact.
We need to start getting some deals over the line.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
So you agree, it took TM and RM time before the deal seemed right. It wasn't like TM decided months ago RV is out the door because he doesn't suit my new style.
TM has decided perhaps now is the right time.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I am really struggling to get my head around what is happening.
Last season TM had said that 60% of all income.....including money received by selling players......would be used on our playing side including wages. I mentioned it a few times on here. I was questioned about whether I thought I was right to believe it. After the sale of Maddison I said I was unsure.
So now we have heard from TM that he won't see any of the Maddison cash but will get it from now. And those that questioned what was said about TM previously getting 60% of all income are now saying trust TM and SISU to spend the money strengthening our squad. So what is different from last season to now?
Last season TM had said that 60% of all income.....including money received by selling players......would be used on our playing side including wages. I mentioned it a few times on here. I was questioned about whether I thought I was right to believe it. After the sale of Maddison I said I was unsure.
So now we have heard from TM that he won't see any of the Maddison cash but will get it from now. And those that questioned what was said about TM previously getting 60% of all income are now saying trust TM and SISU to spend the money strengthening our squad. So what is different from last season to now?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Tony getting smashed all over this thread like he did on that Wasps one. Chuck the towel in Tony, there's a good lad.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Ah, the shifting parameters of management. It is after all about; manage.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not what I am saying.
Last season those saying that I was wrong to trust SISU/TM to have 60% of all income including player sales on the playing squad (and they were right) are now saying trust the sale of RV to help the building of this seasons squad.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
I don't agree, he's hitting nearly all the opposition to the boundary on this. They might not agree with his point, so make shit up while he's kept a straight bat. Nicks frenzy went for a six. :-;
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Just what I was thinking lol
Nick
Administrator
Frenzy? Of course.
So why not ask at the scg meeting they are going to in a day or so? It was for the attention.
It isn't made up, it's common sense.
I notice he didn't have a go at osb's post.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Lots of knee jerk wailing and gnashing of teeth on here upon the news.
At least though we all had time to calm down and reflect and not put it in a statement.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Probably because OSB just stated his opinion with none of the added frenzy.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you didn't pick up on my subtle joke around the word manage, as in get by rather than exert control.
Nick
Administrator
So did I.. Yet you jumped straight on it..
Why aren't you lecturing him about what a supporters trust should do?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Whammy!
Nick
Administrator
Bit embarrassing really.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I think he's taking the piss Tony.
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Cringe
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He hasn't implied things like the trust have accused TM of lying or are calling for him TM to be sacked, which of course they're not. You happened to be one of the first comments on it so I replied to you first. By the time OSB passed comment you were in full frenzy mode and I was having fun pointing that out. You don't actually sound like you've calmed down yet by bringing other posters into it. Did you get to bed last night or were you up all night pumped up on redbull?