lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I did sign our captain on loan for a couple of months, but despite his name, he was absolutely shit at baking.
Kitchen just a mess of flour,eggs and sunken soufle's.
Had to send him back.
I'm ruling myself out of a move for Leon Clarke as well.
Sure I've got a few DIY tasks round the house to complete but I'm not sure I could him busy enough to justify his wage for the season.
I haven't actually had any preliminary discussions with CCFC but I'm monitoring the situation as I've heard Blair Adams is a dab hand with patio design.
I've also been stung by this and my own illiteracy. It turns out that Leon lad in the youth team everyone is banging on about is RUBBISH at lobotomies.
Westwood - Sold
Keogh - Sold
Fox - Sold
Dann - Sold
Gunnarsson - Sold
Turner - Sold
Bigi - Sold
Thomas - Tried to sell
Best - Sold
Robins - No assurances
Mcgoldrick - couldnt convince
Henderson - had the chance to buy but didnt
Carroll - Had the chance to buy but didnt
If anyone thinks that Clarke is not up for sale then you are crazy. The writing is on the wall
Wish that some of those had been sold rather left to leave for nothing or virtually nothing due to the incompetence of Ranson.
The Henderson and Carroll stories are just bullshit anyway.
Lots of hysterical nonense on here. What's the story, laws wants to sign Clark bit he's paid too much.
Also even if sisu fund losses they are not allowed to breach FPP rules which factor in total turnover. If these guys are paid over a million a year between them we'd need to sell them even if we had 10,000 a week.
Again...in the interests of balance (and a spot more fishing)...
Sisu also brought most of those players to the club in the first place (Westwood, Gunnar, Fox, Dann, Keogh, McGoldrick)
Breaking news.....football club buys & sells players shocker.....
Wait there. We signed him in 2013 - at a time when we were only getting 10K a game. Is your grand point of debate that we needed to sell him before we signed him?
Whilst I wouldn't argue with you about Ranson and your use of the 'i' word; at the time he left, we were above Midlesbrough, Derby and Crystal Palace in the championship.
Our largest league gate during that season was over 28K, at home, against Leeds. We played in a town called Coventry back then.
If he was 'incompetent', what adjectives would you summon for those who have steered the ship since 'Mr I' left?
No - it's that the rules then and the rules now are different. Either he was signed on the premise that we'd be promoted or SISU were hedging their bets on being able to sell him at a later date, or, perhaps achieving a better wage bill: income ration based on paying a fair rent.
Lots of hysterical nonense on here. What's the story, laws wants to sign Clark bit he's paid too much.
Also even if sisu fund losses they are not allowed to breach FPP rules which factor in total turnover. If these guys are paid over a million a year between them we'd need to sell them even if we had 10,000 a week.
Wait there. We signed him in 2013 - at a time when we were only getting 10K a game. Is your grand point of debate that we needed to sell him before we signed him?
No - it's that the rules then and the rules now are different. Either he was signed on the premise that we'd be promoted or SISU were hedging their bets on being able to sell him at a later date, or, perhaps achieving a better wage bill: income ration based on paying a fair rent.
So you admit that these players will have to be sold because SISU moved us to Northampton and nothing to do with NOPM?
If we were at the Ricoh I would agree but we were always going to struggle in Northampton regardless of NOPMSurely NOPM is partly to blame?
With such great crowds and exalted league positions then losing millions upon millions, year on year must surely make him even more incompetent?
Though of course when he left we were 4th from bottom and and not above Derby and Middlesborough, and finished the seaon 6th from bottom(still above Crystal Palace).
I know you're not overly keen on facts getting in the way of a good argument, but it might be worth you giving them a try sometime, even if just for the novelty value.
There was still a chance of promotion, suggestion is we tried to sign mcgoldrick on £10k a week. It was a gamble. We were not in administration and it was a risk worth taking.
Do you know the day his resignation was actually lodged and? It was announced in the papers in and around March 28th to 30th.
We didn't play from 19th March, at which point we were fourth from bottom, until April 2nd, when we beat Watford, climbed the table and you'll find my 'facts' 100% correct. The April 2nd table was the closest to the day of the newspaper article, and probably more representative of the time he'd have handed over and moved on.
Still, why permit semantics to get in the way of addressing the bigger issue, eh?
Let me paraphrase your answer. No. I have no idea.
In what way are the rules different?
The spending constraints are tighter now than they were then.
Do you know the day his resignation was actually lodged and? It was announced in the papers in and around March 28th to 30th.
We didn't play from 19th March, at which point we were fourth from bottom, until April 2nd, when we beat Watford, climbed the table and you'll find my 'facts' 100% correct. The April 2nd table was the closest to the day of the newspaper article, and probably more representative of the time he'd have handed over and moved on.
Still, why permit semantics to get in the way of addressing the bigger issue, eh?
Why give him a two and a half year deal then? Why not sign him until the end of the season?
So what league position were we on the day of the announcement?
Again, you're just concentrating on semantics of a single point as the balance of the debate is well beyond you. You could ask at what day was his resignation filed at company's house.
LS hasn't as yet told us what the latest management is, if Ranson was 'incompetent'.
And at least he oversaw a business that did sell players for a profit. Can you name me one player signed since Ranson left that we've subsequently made money on? So, if we're looking at financial mess, I think it's a bit rich to label him 'incompetent', and refuse to label those who have administered the business since
Match his wages?..................I thought we only got him because he was wetting his end in the Forest goalkeepers missus and they wanted him out and didn't have to pay a penny until his 3 month spell ended and then surprise surprise he became rather attractive to a bundle of clubs in dire need of goals?!
We've sold Dann and Fox for a "profit", though a total of around 3 million for them(as was in the accounts), am gross underselling.
Virtually everybody else we let go for nothing, either through letting them run down their contracts, or because they weren't good enough to actually demand a fee for their services.
Have to say that in some areas of transfer dealing he was very good, unfortunately it was for Cardiff whilst he was our Chairman.
Jutkiewitz? Keogh? Don't they count?
Best,bigi???
Jutkiewitz? Keogh? Don't they count?
Best had 6 months left on his contract and would have left for nothing. £1.5m Newcastle paid for him was a good fee in the circumstances.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?