mcpake gone for free! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter hamil99
- Start date
sky_blue_up_north
Well-Known Member
Personaly not to worried about McPake going for a free, more concerned about the fact we've not got even close to bringing new players in McPake was good when fit, but with a waffer thin skin squad we could not afford to carry him. Perahaps it was the only way to get him off the books.
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
Just had a horrible thought about Mc pake's going!
If the only benefit to us was to get rid of a big salary - how come "small team" Hibs could aford him?
Did he take a pay cut to leave the sinking ship?
imp:
I read on anther site that he took a wage cut to 2500 a week, as thats the max Hibs could offer him, but he wanted to go back home so much he took it.
The Rev
skyblueinBaku
Well-Known Member
OSB, maybe Hibs wanted McPake and some money. Perhaps, in that case, it was a great piece of negotiating by Mr. Waggot!!
Seriously, this beggars belief. What are the people running this club playing at? Are Fisher and Waggot the reincarnations of Laurel & Hardy?
Colonel Mustard
New Member
It's no different to when Blackburn signed David Thompson for £1.5m, with Souness saying something to the tune of "Yes, we were able to get a good price because of their financial problems."
Transfer fees are compensation for a loss. Wanting wages off the books shouldn't require compensation if there's no competition for the player. Everybody in football knows that CCFC is open for business, so it seems likely that Hibs were the only takers for McPake.
Tough times, but not unsurprising business.
Transfer fees are compensation for a loss. Wanting wages off the books shouldn't require compensation if there's no competition for the player. Everybody in football knows that CCFC is open for business, so it seems likely that Hibs were the only takers for McPake.
Tough times, but not unsurprising business.
Stevec189
New Member
I think Hibs offered £100k but we would have to pay clauses in is contract and hae would have been due a signing on fee which is part of any un ask for transfer deal. By agreeing not to take a fee this allowed the £100 k to ease the deal through and we got rid of a player who did not want to stay. AT has said he only wants players who want to play for us and McPake or Mrs McPake clearly didn't. PUSB
Sub
Well-Known Member
AT also said we are ready to go bang bang bang once the transfer embargo was lifted, more bullshit from everybody at the club. we have not got a pot to piss in and the team will have senior pro's like hussey and clarke!!! club is a shambles from top to bottom :jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
How right you are. Mcpake was one of numerous defenders signed by Coleman so he could kick out ward. As Coleman was almost as clueless as thorn most he signed or loaned were abject. Mcpake was useless. There was a game at the very end of a season (Watford) when even Eastwood scored and we were winning by a couple of goals and then ward is injured. Mcpake lumbers on and we lose. Even the clueless thorn preferred a 17 year old novice at right back and Keogh at centre half. Anyone who says he is worth half a million really needs to go and lie down in a dark room. I'd have given him away and paid his train fare back to Scotland. Good riddance.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Q: 'Who would you rather have, Messi or Ronaldo?' Thorn: 'Well errrr, I'd probably 'av Ronaldo, ye, cos he's more used to the err football in this err country-would have Messi on the bench though, errr just to bring on'
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Lets just hope they don't ask him his favourite overseas band.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
He isn't worth 500k solely because of his injury record but he isn't half as bad as you make him out to be.
Our best two runs over the last 3 seasons under Boothroyd and Coleman came in a spell when Mcpake was fit and playing. He would be brilliant in league 1 if he could keep fit but if he was on 6k as has been said it was probably wise to get rid of a player with his injury record on such a high wage.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Are you referring to the 9 game unbeaten run that turned out to be 5 and he did not start 2 of them? Even Thorn didn't rate him.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If Thorn's as clueless as you say he is then him not deeming McPake good enough is an endorsement of his ability.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
James Mcpakes first season at Cov
Only 4 losses in 17 championship fixtures he played in and played in our best run going from end of January to mid March where we nearly made the play offs.
This is pretty much his only consistent run of games since he joined the club due to injuries and we didn't do too badly then.
Like I say due to his injuries it was probably wise to get rid but when he was fit he was far from a bad player.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Web Cameron was fit was he first choice under thorn or was he ever on the bench.
Jimmy Hill's Chin
Well-Known Member
Coleman almost appeared fixated at having a pop at Ward. For a while he criticised him in every post-match interview even when he wasn't selected. Ward was hounded out of the club by Coleman which was totally out of order.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
seemed odd at first but if it helps get in kilbane and fleck it helps soften blow
imperative we keep keogh now though, keogh,cameron,wood and willis i expect will be our 4 centrebacks for l1, lets hope first 3 keep fit!
imperative we keep keogh now though, keogh,cameron,wood and willis i expect will be our 4 centrebacks for l1, lets hope first 3 keep fit!
Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
It was 8, and he did.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Longest unbeaten run during that time was 5, played half of the winless run too(The half with more losses than draws).
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
If you look back at the page before Mcpake was unbeaten in 8 consecutive games he played in that season. There was a 4-1 loss to Newcastle sandwiched in them 8 games in which Mcpake was injured
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
takes more than one man for a team to be unbeaten or to be beaten
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Don't mean to be rude but cheers for stating the obvious.
He isn't half as bad as some are making out and I was posting stats which back that up
17 goals conceded in 17 league games isn't bad at all as a whole defensive unit which Mcpake was part of. Injuries an unfitness have held him back, not his ability
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
CCFC, you can't be rude to our most highly esteemed and regarded poster, without him and one or two others we would all be totally in the dark regarding money matters
.If you want to you can slag me off ,as generally i write a load of shite full to the brim of untruths
I agree with you though, that Mc Pake would have been one to keep than one to off-load.
The Rev
Last edited:
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
At the moment I am not overly worried that Mcpake has left simply because of his injuries, if we can replace him with someone who is able to play over 35 games a season then great. I just think when he was fully fit an playing he was a good player.
I am still in the dark because I can barely understand a word when people start talking finances on the forum.
Astute
Well-Known Member
You mean like Fleck going to Norwich? ;-)
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
There was also a 1-0 win against Derby in that sequence you missed out. Was the win and clean sheet then entirely down to McPake being out injured for it? Probably not, but any wins with him in the side probably not down to McPake being in the side either. Don't mind people using stats to back up their arguments, but correct and non-selective ones would help your argument more.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Just checked and it was a 1-0 win over QPR he missed
Over the last few years that run with Coleman has been our best of recent years and Mcpake missed 2 games of it, a 1-0 win over QPR and a 4-1 defeat to Newcastle
5 wins 4 draws and 1 loss was the run
I am not saying any results in that time are solely down for Mcpake or any other player but you can't deny in that time our defence record in that period is probably the best for a while.
This was the only season Mcpake had a consistent run in the side that season and he and the team performed well in that period. We only lost 4 times in 17 games he played, of course he didn't win the games by himself but we have never scored a lot of goals so it says at this time the defence was good. A defence which he was part of. I don't see what else I could judge his ability from as this is the only time in his City career he had a decent run of games without injury
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why did thorn leave him on the bench when fit then and played Christie at right back and Keogh centre half?
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
I don't know, I have said many times in my eyes this was a mistake his refusal to break up the Cranie/Keogh partnership when they were needed at full back.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
no offense taken CCFC
............ just pointing out that too much credit or criticism seemed to be given to him in the thread as a whole not to the defence he played well & badly in for a time, imo. McPake had his qualities, was physical and put himself in where it hurt coupled with the odd flash of skill.... would have done well in League 1 ...... but, again in my opinion, I think that was/is his level. The times he did play for us last season he wasnt good enough but then goes north of the border and becomes a hero .... such is football i guess down one minute up the next
I also think AT didnt rate him for the teams passing style game which is why he didnt get played as much. Passing is not his game. Things moved on McPake felt a little unloved (but still remained loyal) his family became unsettled too and the transfer was almost a foregone conclusion
I wish him well
Last edited:
