WHY? (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

Well I wish Chaplin had the same agent.
How many clubs with genuine ambition sell their best player without first securing an adequate replacement.
It’s simple really, you have to play hard ball and tell Mcnulty he’s not leaving until we’ve signed another striker.
Robins bleating on about agents is pathetic, and just deflecting the blame off himself. And all the fans just suck it up.

Would you rather McNulty went towards the end of the window after spending pre season with us or that he went as soon as possible rather than potentially disrupting the others? It then gives us a month to get a replacement. (rather than a couple of days or hours).

It's not really pathetic, it's highlighting just how much power and sway agents have nowadays.

 

---

[fatso]

So you want to keep an unhappy sulking player? Risk disrupting team spirit and forcing a player in to the team? He wasnt bleating he was stating a fact. If it wasnt for the agent he wouldnt have had his head turned so much. We were offered good money for a player who wanted to leave so why keep him and risk having an unhappy player and no buyer?

I didn’t say we should keep him, if you actually read my post, I very clearly stated that you tell him he’s not leaving UNTIL a replacement has been found.
It would appear that Chaplin has been told as much, ironically.

 

[Nick]

I didn’t say we should keep him, if you actually read my post, I very clearly stated that you tell him he’s not leaving UNTIL a replacement has been found.
It would appear that Chaplin has been told as much, ironically.

What if Reading then move on and it leaves us with a player who is "Stroppy"?

How do you know Robins hasn't got other things going on that aren't being put in the press every 5 minutes?

 

[Garryb80]

I didn’t say we should keep him, if you actually read my post, I very clearly stated that you tell him he’s not leaving UNTIL a replacement has been found.
It would appear that Chaplin has been told as much, ironically.

So you say we shouldn't keep him but tell him he is staying when he doesn't want to.., logic right there! We got a very good offer for an unhappy player. Correct decision contrary to your apparent tantrum about it

 

[fernandopartridge]

In terms of splashing money about. I think offering more than other League One teams for Ogogo on a 3 year deal is better than Henderson, Ramage and Hunt on a 6 month deal.

It isn't just about transfer fees, a lot of it is about offering the better players a decent deal to come here.

The OP obviously thinks players play for nought

 

[wingy]

Would you rather McNulty went towards the end of the window after spending pre season with us or that he went as soon as possible rather than potentially disrupting the others? It then gives us a month to get a replacement. (rather than a couple of days or hours).

It's not really pathetic, it's highlighting just how much power and sway agents have nowadays.

Not really Nick
The agent acted for the Player, who wanted to move.

 

[fatso]

Would you rather McNulty went towards the end of the window after spending pre season with us or that he went as soon as possible rather than potentially disrupting the others? It then gives us a month to get a replacement. (rather than a couple of days or hours).

It's not really pathetic, it's highlighting just how much power and sway agents have nowadays.

I would far rather he stayed until a replacement was found, However long that took, Surely that’s got to be better than potentially starting the season without an experienced and proven striker.
We can accept he wants to leave, and if that’s the case we move on, but we should conduct the buisiness on our terms, not his.
Portsmouth have shown how it should be done.

 

[pastythegreat]

Can someone tell me why we sold Marc Mcnulty without having a replacement in position ready to sign? We did not want to sell the player so therefore the deal should have been done at our speed. It's not as though it was the eve of the season and Reading needed him straight away .Now we are scrambling around getting a goal scorer in.Not very professional.

I wouldn't say we're "scrambling around" trying to find a replacement AT ALL. We're in talks with Pompey over Chaplin. And besides, the majority of the squad AND the manager are in Spain. Can you honestly say you were expecting us to make any signings while we were over there? Talking nonsense if you think we would of.

I'm not worried yet, 3 weeks til the 1st game yet and 7 til the window closes. No problems. Robins has it in hand.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I would far rather he stayed until a replacement was found, However long that took, Surely that’s got to be better than potentially starting the season without an experienced and proven striker.
We can accept he wants to leave, and if that’s the case we move on, but we should conduct the buisiness on our terms, not his.
Portsmouth have shown how it should be done.

I prefer him not turning everyone else’s heads better to let him leave and then robins can change targets

 

[Garryb80]

I wouldn't say we're "scrambling around" trying to find a replacement AT ALL. We're in talks with Pompey over Chaplin. And besides, the majority of the squad AND the manager are in Spain. Can you honestly say you were expecting us to make any signings while we were over there? Talking nonsense if you think we would of.

I'm not worried yet, 3 weeks til the 1st game yet and 7 til the window closes. No problems. Robins has it in hand.

Window closes before the season starts for permanent signings. Only loans up til the end of August.

 

[fatso]

So you want to keep an unhappy sulking player? Risk disrupting team spirit and forcing a player in to the team? He wasnt bleating he was stating a fact. If it wasnt for the agent he wouldnt have had his head turned so much. We were offered good money for a player who wanted to leave so why keep him and risk having an unhappy player and no buyer?

Please re read my previous post.

 

[pastythegreat]

Window closes before the season starts for permanent signings. Only loans up til the end of August.

And?? Like I said, still have 7 weeks to replace McNulty. What's the worry?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Garryb80]

Please re read my previous post.

I did and it didn't makes sense. You want to keep a player who is clearly unhappy yet haven't factored in that any buyers may disappear. We may then buy a replacement and have him still on our books and possibly spending money we cant then recoup. Seems very strange logic.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

There was a big difference then £200,000 came in them £200,000 was spent to bring players in ,now if £200,000 comes in your lucky to see half spent on replacements.

Show me how you would run the football club differently at the moment. If we spent all the M McNulty money on a £700,00 player and a £500,000 player, do you think they would be on half the wages that he had been on, so as to make the books balance? I think you have got out of bed the wrong side this morning. We can't have an equal and opposite transaction player wise - have Norwich spent £22M replacing Maddison? Anyway, I would have thought you would have been happy as you are huge JP fan, if I remember some of your posts correctly, so not getting anyone would propel him up the pecking order (P.S. I am a fan too!)

 

[Garryb80]

And?? Like I said, still have 7 weeks to replace McNulty. What's the worry?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

How 7 weeks? You want us to replace him with a loan only??

 

[pastythegreat]

How 7 weeks? You want us to replace him with a loan only??

Why not?? If he's a good enough player then why spend money on somebody that might not be?!?! I'd prefer to secure a player on a 2 or 3 year deal but if we were offered an Adam Armstrong esque player on loan for the season then what's the problem??

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If that’s the best replacement then yes

 

[Garryb80]

Why not?? If he's a good enough player then why spend money on somebody that might not be?!?! I'd prefer to secure a player on a 2 or 3 year deal but if we were offered an Adam Armstrong esque player on loan for the season then what's the problem??

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Very unlikely though. For every Armstrong there is an Andre Wright or Folivi. The meltdown on here would be sizable if we don't replace him with a permanent signing.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

Well I wish Chaplin had the same agent.
How many clubs with genuine ambition sell their best player without first securing an adequate replacement.
It’s simple really, you have to play hard ball and tell Mcnulty he’s not leaving until we’ve signed another striker.
Robins bleating on about agents is pathetic, and just deflecting the blame off himself. And all the fans just suck it up.

If I were the manager and I knew a player was wanting out, the last thing I would want is him around pre-season training unsettling others, who would be full of feelgood factor following promotion.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If I were the manager and I knew a player was wanting out, the last thing I would want is him around pre-season training unsettling others, who would be full of feelgood factor following promotion.

Yep absolutely bang on

 

[fatso]

I did and it didn't makes sense. You want to keep a player who is clearly unhappy yet haven't factored in that any buyers may disappear. We may then buy a replacement and have him still on our books and possibly spending money we cant then recoup. Seems very strange logic.

For the love of god, how thick are you?
I’ll spell it out just for you Garry,
I’ve never once suggested we keep Mcnulty, or any other player who expresses a wish to leave. If they want to go, they go. Simple.
(Are you still with me?)
What I did say was that no player as vital as our top scorer, should be allowed to leave UNTIL I repeat, UNTIL and adequate replacement has been found.
(Hint, the clue is in the word UNTIL)
Which is exactly what Portsmouth have said to Chaplin and his agent.
While here at city, he could go as soon as Reading hit a certain fee, which meant that money was Far more important than the impact on the team.
IMHO, (You are of course at liberty to disagree, but please don’t misquote me in future)

 

[pastythegreat]

Very unlikely though. For every Armstrong there is an Andre Wright or Folivi. The meltdown on here would be sizable if we don't replace him with a permanent signing.

You think we only sign DUDS on loan?? So we loan a dud and pay a %of his wages or we sign a dud on a 3 year deal, pay his signing on fee, a fee to buy him AND his full wages for 3 years.
For every Mark McNulty there's a Stuart Beacon or a Kevin Kyle or a Peter Vincetti.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

For the love of god, how thick are you?
I’ll spell it out just for you Garry,
I’ve never once suggested we keep Mcnulty, or any other player who expresses a wish to leave. If they want to go, they go. Simple.
(Are you still with me?)
What I did say was that no player as vital as our top scorer, should be allowed to leave UNTIL I repeat, UNTIL and adequate replacement has been found.
(Hint, the clue is in the word UNTIL)
Which is exactly what Portsmouth have said to Chaplin and his agent.
While here at city, he could go as soon as Reading hit a certain fee, which meant that money was Far more important than the impact on the team.
IMHO, (You are of course at liberty to disagree, but please don’t misquote me in future)

Is that what they have said to Chaplin and his agent then?

Seems like Portsmouth keep moving the goalposts to me and just trying to get more money themselves....

 

[fatso]

If I were the manager and I knew a player was wanting out, the last thing I would want is him around pre-season training unsettling others, who would be full of feelgood factor following promotion.

You don’t have to keep the player around the first team though, you have other options, such as leaving him behind from tour (like Stokes) sending him to train with the academy or at the memorial park like mcsheffrey etc did. (Just an example, that one)
Just a thought.
Hopefully Chaplin will sign this week, and all of this will be forgotten, but I’d sooner get it settled quickly so we can get some friendlies with the new striker in place.

 

[fatso]

Is that what they have said to Chaplin and his agent then?

Seems like Portsmouth keep moving the goalposts to me and just trying to get more money themselves....

Whatever they have said, they certainly appear to be holding all the cards.
I’m getting a bit pissed off with Portsmouth, but I can’t blame them for holding out for the best deal for them. And it looks like they want another striker in before letting Chaplin go ...... who would of thought?

 

[Nick]

Whatever they have said, they certainly appear to be holding all the cards.
I’m getting a bit pissed off with Portsmouth, but I can’t blame them for holding out for the best deal for them. And it looks like they want another striker in before letting Chaplin go ...... who would of thought?

It's being held up on money though?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Whatever they have said, they certainly appear to be holding all the cards.
I’m getting a bit pissed off with Portsmouth, but I can’t blame them for holding out for the best deal for them. And it looks like they want another striker in before letting Chaplin go ...... who would of thought?

Oh well. Nothing but good wishes for Portsmouth after what they’ve been through but it’s possible for us to be right in how we sold McNulty and for them to be right in holding on to Chaplin.

 

[Terry_dactyl]

Perhaps their need

Oh well. Nothing but good wishes for Portsmouth after what they’ve been through but it’s possible for us to be right in how we sold McNulty and for them to be right in holding on to Chaplin.

No! No! No! We’re utter bastards and Pompey are run like a well oiled machine!

 

[Grendel]

Whatever they have said, they certainly appear to be holding all the cards.
I’m getting a bit pissed off with Portsmouth, but I can’t blame them for holding out for the best deal for them. And it looks like they want another striker in before letting Chaplin go ...... who would of thought?

The difference is Chaplin is not a first team regular in their team. They know we have some money and therefore will try to inflate the price. It’s nothing to do with a replacement it’s cashing in

If the money we received for McNulty is true we have maximised revenue well. Imagine if we’d have been the club who gave him away to be cashed in 12 months later for over a million. You’d be then accusing sisu of selling on the cheap.

McNulty and his agent have all the cards as he was integral to the team. Chaplin isn’t so he is now a pawn in Portsmouth’s game.

 

[Nick]

The difference is Chaplin is not a first team regular in their team. They know we have some money and therefore will try to inflate the price. It’s nothing to do with a replacement it’s cashing in

If the money we received for McNulty is true we have maximised revenue well. Imagine if we’d have been the club who gave him away to be cashed in 12 months later for over a million. You’d be then accusing sisu of selling on the cheap.

McNulty and his agent have all the cards as he was integral to the team. Chaplin isn’t so he is now a pawn in Portsmouth’s game.

Also even if Chaplin does stay and do nothing they will get Compensation for him when he is out of contract.

If we bombed McNulty out we would get nothing.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The difference is Chaplin is not a first team regular in their team. They know we have some money and therefore will try to inflate the price. It’s nothing to do with a replacement it’s cashing in

If the money we received for McNulty is true we have maximised revenue well. Imagine if we’d have been the club who gave him away to be cashed in 12 months later for over a million. You’d be then accusing sisu of selling on the cheap.

McNulty and his agent have all the cards as he was integral to the team. Chaplin isn’t so he is now a pawn in Portsmouth’s game.

Another who’s bang on

 

[Captain Dart]

Can someone tell me why we sold Marc Mcnulty without having a replacement in position ready to sign? We did not want to sell the player so therefore the deal should have been done at our speed. It's not as though it was the eve of the season and Reading needed him straight away .Now we are scrambling around getting a goal scorer in.Not very professional.

Probably because Robins needs to sell first to get the money for a good replacement and he isn't going to stay or be happy so there is no point in standing in his way.

 

[Samo]

Can someone tell me why we sold Marc Mcnulty without having a replacement in position ready to sign? We did not want to sell the player so therefore the deal should have been done at our speed. It's not as though it was the eve of the season and Reading needed him straight away .Now we are scrambling around getting a goal scorer in.Not very professional.

Because we can't spend money that is yet to come in? Just a thought.

 

[vow]

Regarding the OP, in a perfect world we would have had a replacement ready, however we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[thekidfromstrettoncamp]

Samo and others on here nowhere have I said we buy before we sell I said line up a possible replacement where 1 deal triggers another . Like buying a house I know possibility of getting into a chain but by just letting him go the way we have 20 odd goals light and 1 week nearer the season other teams know they can hold out when selling because we have sold and are in need. S B H H never said we need to spend the same amount on a transfer fee as you get in saying if X comes in X is spent on a replacement of which some of it is wages . Your right great fan of J P said many times on here should be given more time playing a central position instead of on the wing and we will see what he can do. ( There will be more than the 2 of us at the end of the season)