Search results

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?

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...

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?

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...

Well. He's having a good day in the office tonight.

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

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...

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...

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...

Again. In English please.

Seems the club did the right thing by making him put in a transfer request. Good move. The story is of course that it couldn't be reinvested in the team as it had to contribute to the self imposed losses off the Sixfields debacle so SISU's investors could get a discount on covering those self...

I hope he can make a full recovery from this. Get well soon Calum.

Can't beat a bit of Pantera. RIP Dimebag.

Yeah. Nobody post a reply so it doesn't stay at the top of the first page. Including me... ... Oh bollocks!

Where do you begin with this one? It's like being asked to pick your favourite child. Here's a few. White Rabbit She sells sanctuary Enter sandman Snap your fingers snap your neck Can't stop Ace of spades Back in black Number of the beast Iron man Smack my bitch up

Is it because they take business advice of SISU?

Yeah and unfortunately England may have just got shot. Need a result against Australia now. Big ask now for England to progress. Fair play to Wales though.

I've got some news for you here that might shock you. Ahem, Coventry City Football Club is owned by SISU. Someone got the ball rolling on the December deadline thread with Wasps and that was you, grendull, Nick and torch. You and grendull then made sure that the ball kept rolling dragging...

Cheers. You're good like that :pimp: