spill the beans (6 Viewers)

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

At the time the fans hated Sisu.

Clarke was probably told by Sisu to hand in a transfer request to make out to the fans he was forcing a move when in fact he wasn't. Both parties then get what they want (Sisu the money and Clarke the move) and it doesn't look as if Sisu just sold our best player. Pretty simple to understand.

So Clarke was in cahoots with SISU and formed a plan with them to deceive the fans into thinking Clarke forced the move when in fact he didn't. Meanwhile Clarke was probably giving up bonuses by handing in the request and further damaging his reputation, but he didn't care about that as it was more important to him that the fans didn't blame SISU.

Why didn't they do the same with Wilson?

 

---

[Gazolba]

In football, you have to get the money when you can. A player's career does not last that long. If he had honoured the contract, maybe he would have gone off the boil and no-one would have wanted him. Wolves wanted him and offered more money, SISU would not match it. So he went. No blame attaches to Clarke in my opinion. How many of us would refuse a rise in wages?

 

[Sick Boy]

Quite ludicrous really, he only put in a request because the club refused to sell him to begin with and somehow that translates into SISU engineered his move

It's hardly surprising; they'd rather attack the club and side with Leon Clarke.

Madness.

 

[Grendel]

Again. In English please.

It is in English Tony, spell check made get from they - it's not hard to work out but easy I guess to dodge the issue. He was paid more than Clarke according to sources.

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

In football, you have to get the money when you can. A player's career does not last that long. If he had honoured the contract, maybe he would have gone off the boil and no-one would have wanted him. Wolves wanted him and offered more money, SISU would not match it. So he went. No blame attaches to Clarke in my opinion. How many of us would refuse a rise in wages?

Bang on.
The chant of "you only went for the money" and cries of "Judas" on Saturday only serve to show how deluded fans can be.

 

[skybluetony176]

It is in English Tony, spell check made get from they - it's not hard to work out but easy I guess to dodge the issue. He was paid more than Clarke according to sources.

Asking for clarification is hardly dodging by any stretch of the imagination. Except yours apparently.

Anyhow, now you've CLARIFIED I'll answer the point. Even IF we did pay him more we didn't spend the Clarke transfer fee on his wages did we? So no, we didn't invest the Clarke money. He was also only here on a loan until the end of the season so he was a short term fix. So not an investment is it?

 

[Sick Boy]

Anyone calling Leon Clarke judas needs their head checking! Let's not forget that Wolves were also looking dead certs for promotion.

Some still seem to believe that every player has a secret desire to play for Coventry.

 

[Sick Boy]

Asking for clarification is hardly dodging by any stretch of the imagination. Except yours apparently.

Anyhow, now you've CLARIFIED I'll answer the point. Even IF we did pay him more we didn't spend the Clarke transfer fee on his wages did we? So no, we didn't invest the Clarke money. He was also only here on a loan until the end of the season so he was a short term fix. So not an investment is it?

How do you think the operating costsystem of the club are paid? The players wages?

It's no good mocking those who claim the clubs needs full acess to revenue and then complain when a self sufficent club have to sell players.

 

[Grendel]

Asking for clarification is hardly dodging by any stretch of the imagination. Except yours apparently.

Anyhow, now you've CLARIFIED I'll answer the point. Even IF we did pay him more we didn't spend the Clarke transfer fee on his wages did we? So no, we didn't invest the Clarke money. He was also only here on a loan until the end of the season so he was a short term fix. So not an investment is it?

Yes the deal cost us a fortune. One manager in particular seemed very bitter about it in a post match interview - we also signed Pruton, Marshall and the QPR player

 

[Grendel]

How do you think the operating costsystem of the club are paid? The players wages?

It's no good mocking those who claim the clubs needs full acess to revenue and then complain when a self sufficent club have to sell players.

Bang on

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Yes the deal cost us a fortune. One manager in particular seemed very bitter about it in a post match interview - we also signed Pruton, Marshall and the QPR player

Dean Smith after we beat Walsall it was. He said we've paid a lot of money to get him in.

We also signed/loaned
Mgeouch
Akpom
Anton Robinson
Ecclestone

 

[skybluetony176]

How do you think the operating costsystem of the club are paid? The players wages?

It's no good mocking those who claim the clubs needs full acess to revenue and then complain when a self sufficent club have to sell players.

What the hell are you talking about? The Clarke money and the Arsenal windfall were used to cover the losses off the idiotic Sixfields debacle. Losses that we could have avoided if our owners were willing to find a way to stay at the Ricoh, which they weren't. Wasn't part of the conditions of the Sixfields move from the FL that SISU's investors cover the losses? The Clarke fee was a good discount on paying for your own mistakes wasn't it?

When have I mocked anyone for recognising that the club needs access to revenues. I recognise that the club needs access to revenues for starters.

Again, the reason we weren't self sufficient during the Sixfields season was because we were at Sixfields. Tim knew better and got laughed at for it. Plenty told him what would happen and it did.The club DID THE RIGHT THING by making Clarke sign a transfer request, possibly the only thing that they did get right that season but lets not try and kid anyone that it was used for anything other than discounting the cost of self imposed losses for SISU's investors.

 

[skybluetony176]

Yes the deal cost us a fortune. One manager in particular seemed very bitter about it in a post match interview - we also signed Pruton, Marshall and the QPR player

Sounds like it would have been cheaper and more beneficial to have just given Clarke the pay rise and retain his services from what you're saying. Certainly none of those players stepped up to his standard. We would have retained his services for 12 months after they'd all gone too. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

 

[skybluetony176]

Dean Smith after we beat Walsall it was. He said we've paid a lot of money to get him in.

We also signed/loaned
Mgeouch
Akpom
Anton Robinson
Ecclestone

A lot of money by league one standards, especially Walsall's league one standard could still be less than what we were paying Clarke.

 

[shmmeee]

It is in English Tony, spell check made get from they - it's not hard to work out but easy I guess to dodge the issue. He was paid more than Clarke according to sources.

Dolphin Nose was paid more than Clarke? And we wouldn't give Clarke a pay rise? Madness.

Though either one would've been money wasted on Pressley TBF.

 

[Grendel]

A lot of money by league one standards, especially Walsall's league one standard could still be less than what we were paying Clarke.

I guess we have to decided who to believe,

Dean Smith a respected and experienced league one manager or a poster on a forum called Skybluetony.

Now this is a toughie.

 

[Grendel]

Sounds like it would have been cheaper and more beneficial to have just given Clarke the pay rise and retain his services from what you're saying. Certainly none of those players stepped up to his standard. We would have retained his services for 12 months after they'd all gone too. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

We had players who'd play. Not Leon Clarke who'd have never turned out for us again.

 

[skybluetony176]

I guess we have to decided who to believe,

Dean Smith a respected and experienced league one manager or a poster on a forum called Skybluetony.

Now this is a toughie.

Believe what? I've made a general observation not a statement of fact. I'd be surprised if Walsall have ever paid anyone anywhere near what we were paying Clarke in league one. So just because their manager said we're paying good money for him doesn't automatically mean that we were paying him more than we were paying Clarke.

What were we paying them both a week then? Do you actually know?

 

[skybluetony176]

We had players who'd play. Not Leon Clarke who'd have never turned out for us again.

Wasn't the point he was making was that he would have stayed with a pay rise.

According to you we sold him and then signed a loan who cost us more in wages and didn't deliver. Like I said. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

 

[Grendel]

Believe what? I've made a general observation not a statement of fact. I'd be surprised if Walsall have ever paid anyone anywhere near what we were paying Clarke in league one. So just because their manager said we're paying good money for him doesn't automatically mean that we were paying him more than we were paying Clarke.

What were we paying them both a week then? Do you actually know?

I don't. However my belief is Dean Smith may have more of an idea than Skybluetony.

Then again you may know far more.

All I am saying is I believe him above you

Given your wealth of knowledge on salaries and wage structures in league one I am sure most posters will believe you,

I'm just behind the underdog - dean smith the manager of a league one football team.

 

[Grendel]

Wasn't the point he was making was that he would have stayed with a pay rise.

According to you we sold him and then signed a loan who cost us more in wages and didn't deliver. Like I said. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

Well let's put it this way Tony. Leon Clarke has often left clubs and expressed he never wanted to.

Personally if i saw a 10 time convicted arsonist had burnt a factory down he was an ex employee I might say the finger of suspicion pointed at him - not the person who owned the factory.

 

[higgs]

He's scored again tonight that's 8 in 9 now

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Well let's put it this way Tony. Leon Clarke has often left clubs and expressed he never wanted to.

Personally if i saw a 10 time convicted arsonist had burnt a factory down he was an ex employee I might say the finger of suspicion pointed at him - not the person who owned the factory.

Also put it in the context of being managed by someone who is leading the team to a relegation battle and talks of banishing his players being given the chance to move to a team at the top of the league on more money. It is no secret that Pressley's man management was about as reputable as Felix Magath, and probably little surprise that Wolves was a quick and easy way out.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Wasn't the point he was making was that he would have stayed with a pay rise.

According to you we sold him and then signed a loan who cost us more in wages and didn't deliver. Like I said. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

Easy to say he would have stayed with us for more money, he doesn't actually say he would have signed that contract. just that he'd had a discussion about it. I'd guess he was just exploring his options, when he got wind of the Wolves interest any agent in football would have used that as leverage to try and get the current club to match or better what Wolves were offering.

Well we obviously got some sort of financial compensation out of the deal in the transfer fee, I'd guess that with all the loans our wage bill was higher after January. The extra expenditure in wages would have only been a snip of the transfer fee received however

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't. However my belief is Dean Smith may have more of an idea than Skybluetony.

Then again you may know far more.

All I am saying is I believe him above you

Given your wealth of knowledge on salaries and wage structures in league one I am sure most posters will believe you,

I'm just behind the underdog - dean smith the manager of a league one football team.

Again. Believe me for what? I haven't stated that we were paying either player more, interestingly from what you've said neither did Dean Smith. According to you he said "we're playing good money for him" all I'm pointing out is that is not the same as saying we're paying him more than we were paying Clarke as you are insinuating. I don't see why you're having trouble understanding that.

I think its pretty well documented that our playing budget is more than Walsall's so it's not surprising that Walsall's manager thinks we're paying good money for him is it? Given our manager has a bigger budget than him. I'll say it again. That doesn't automatically mean that we paid him more than we paid Clarke. Not a statement that we did, not a statement that we didn't. Just a general observation. Not to difficult to understand is it really?

 

[skybluetony176]

Well let's put it this way Tony. Leon Clarke has often left clubs and expressed he never wanted to.

Personally if i saw a 10 time convicted arsonist had burnt a factory down he was an ex employee I might say the finger of suspicion pointed at him - not the person who owned the factory.

We offered him a pay rise then?

I've asked you twice now and you keep changing the direction of the conversation but I'll try again.

According to you we sold him and then signed a loan who cost us more in wages and didn't deliver. Like I said. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

It's hardly surprising; they'd rather attack the club and side with Leon Clarke.

Madness.

And you would rather believe every word that comes out of the said owners Arses sorry Mouths.
Oh and who is attacking the club or the side? more bullshit you really do have the right username.
PUSB

 

[skybluetony176]

Easy to say he would have stayed with us for more money, he doesn't actually say he would have signed that contract. just that he'd had a discussion about it. I'd guess he was just exploring his options, when he got wind of the Wolves interest any agent in football would have used that as leverage to try and get the current club to match or better what Wolves were offering.

Well we obviously got some sort of financial compensation out of the deal in the transfer fee, I'd guess that with all the loans our wage bill was higher after January. The extra expenditure in wages would have only been a snip of the transfer fee received however

I'm not saying he would have stayed. Just pointing out the point of what he was saying.

For sure we got some financial compensation of Wolves. Just pointing out that it was used to cover some of the losses incurred from the idiotic move to Sixfields. Grendull wants us to believe it was reinvested in the team.

 

[chiefdave]

Christ how is this still going. Even if you don't count his 10 loan clubs he has played for 7 clubs, and of course he played for Wolves twice. That's in 12 years. Would suggest that he was unlikely to stick around when his hometown club who were pushing for promotion tapped him up.

 

[Grendel]

I'm not saying he would have stayed. Just pointing out the point of what he was saying.

For sure we got some financial compensation of Wolves. Just pointing out that it was used to cover some of the losses incurred from the idiotic move to Sixfields. Grendull wants us to believe it was reinvested in the team.

I think FP has summed up the debate to be fair

 

[skybluetony176]

I think FP has summed up the debate to be fair

Funny how you replied to me asking for clarification on a misspelt point you were making by accusing me of dodging a question and you've now dodged a question three times.

Forth time lucky maybe?

According to you we sold him and then signed a loan who cost us more in wages and didn't deliver. Like I said. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

 

[Grendel]

Grendull wants us to believe it was reinvested in the team.

We signed 7 players after he left.

As FP says there really are some thick cunts on here and you take star billing

Take a bow

 

[Nick]

And you would rather believe every word that comes out of the said owners Arses sorry Mouths.
Oh and who is attacking the club or the side? more bullshit you really do have the right username.
PUSB

The club haven't said anything about it, it is about what it says in the Clarke article. Not what people think it says.

 

[skybluetony176]

We signed 7 players after he left.

As FP says there really are some thick cunts on here and you take star billing

Take a bow

Who achieved what?

Fifth time lucky maybe.

According to you we sold him and then signed a loan *correction, seven players* who cost us more in wages and didn't deliver. Like I said. What benefit did we get out of this deal again?

Wouldn't it also be true to say some of those signings would have arrived even if he'd stayed and we didn't have his transfer fee to "invest" in the squad? Thinking Mark Marshall specifically.

 

[stupot07]

Deleted. .