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.
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
Again. In English please.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 did we get out of this deal again?
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.
We had players who'd play. Not Leon Clarke who'd have never turned out for us 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 more than we were paying Clarke.
What were we paying them both a week then? Do you actually know?
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
It's hardly surprising; they'd rather attack the club and side with Leon Clarke.
Madness.
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.
I think FP has summed up the debate to be fair
Grendull wants us to believe it was reinvested in the team.
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
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
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?